As far as I can tell, BtS has 29 “base” maps that it will generate when you select “Shuffle” mode: Archipelago, Balanced, Continents, Fantasy Realm, Fractal, Great Plains, Highlands, Hub, Ice Age, Inland Sea, Islands, Lakes, Maze, Mirror, Oasis, Pangaea, Ring, Terra, Tilted Axis, Wheel, Arboria, Big and Small, Boreal, Donut, Global Highlands, Hemispheres, Medium and Small, Rainforest (and doesn’t select Team Battleground and Custom Continents). Correct?

So, I want to play a 58-game challenge (gives me decent odds of having to play each of the 29 “base” maps at least once).

Here are my selected settings:
Large Map with 13 Civs (including me)
Shuffle Map (Random Sea Level, Random Climate)
Marathon
Ancient Start
All Victory Conditions
No Tribal Villages
Raging Barbarians
No Technology Brokering
No World Builder
(everything else not selected)

Now, here is the BIG twist. I am not allowed to declare war unless I am allied and my ally is attacked. I realize that this is a big restriction and that it has big implications on which Leader/Civ to select. That is why I’m asking you experts.

So, experts, which Civ/Leader should I select under the above challenge conditions? The Civ/Leader chosen will be used in each of the 58 challenge games. I want to get your opinion of which Civ/Leader will have the best chance.

EDIT: The above challenge conditions are not negotiable or subject to debate. They were chosen for me by somebody else and are carved in stone.

Pick a protective leader. Best way to get someone to attack you is to be very low on the power graph. Protective leaders excel at having small armies in their cities which, due to ridiculous odds when defending, can slaughter much larger forces, weather siege (heavy drill), etc. Once the guy DOWs on you, let him blow his forces on your protective longbow cities, and build up an attack stack while in war. I actually do this all the time...

PS - the experts are in the strategy forums. We just pretend we know what we're doing here.

I don't think there's a condition here which favors any 'leader' or trait. But since practically you can't declare war, I would avoid warmonger leaders and get a builder leader. Actually, it is sometimes possible to make AI attack you by pissing him off if you want war. My recommendations would be Huayna, Elizabeth or Darius.

AIs typically don't go to war early, so this suggest a builder-style leader.
Since you will have no control over the time a war occurs, a UU with a long shelf life is preferable to one that hits hard immediately but fades into obscurity quickly.



I think your best bet would be Augustus Caesar: Industrious is a wonderful economy trait if you are denying yourself the opportunity for an early war, Imperialistic makes adequate peaceful expansion easier while you're busy spamming wonders. Your UB also has some synergy with this approach.

Praetorians give you some teeth should you be attacked yourself, and can be built for millenia. Longer after normal swordsmen would be obsolete, they act as discont Macemen, and even later give you the opportunity to get as many City Raider Riflemen or Grenadiers (but not both) as you want.

Iranon,

You make a pretty good case for Augustus. I'm not planning to start this challenge for a few more days, so I still have some time to think about it. But right now, Augustus is in the lead. The downside to the Romans is that several of the maps don't have much water on them, which means that their fishing puts them at a disadvantage to start with on those maps.

58 games without declaring war? Someones trying to bore you to death? Lost a bet? ;)

Id say youll need some serious rexing to pull a win off consistently, youll need alot of land to outtech/outproduce your enemys without war. So id pick a leader with expansive, for the second trait you could try charismatic/finiancial/industrious/philosophical depending on your playstyle and the ub those leaders provide. Imperialistic could be usefull aswell for the settler bonus, but your not using the general bonus much so i wouldnt reccomend it.

You could ofcourse taunt the enemy into declaring war by demanding loads of useless things, so you can still capture a bit of land. But this challenge is just asking for a builders strategy, if you cant war when you want to, it becomes alot less attractive.

(o and protective is a bad idea, youll want to launch a counterattack when you taunt someone into war, not sit in your citys waiting for your lands to be pillaged)

(o and protective is a bad idea, youll want to launch a counterattack when you taunt someone into war, not sit in your citys waiting for your lands to be pillaged)

Protective is a powerful warring trait. Those drill archers/gunpowder units not only make incredible stack and captured city defenders, but they also make very effective attackers. What's more, drill IV is unmatched in conjunction with siege (lots of attacks with little to no damage to your archer/gunpowder force), which has the distinct advantage of not being bound by any resources.

Bottom line? If you can't war well with protective, that is your problem, not the trait's. I'm a primarily Immortal player, huge maps, 14 civs, and protective is in my eyes the ideal military trait for what he's planning. What good are loads of combat macemen if they are expensive, ineffective defenders and you can't declare war with them and put them on the offensive? What good are charismatic units low upgrade thresholds if there's a good chance you won't even be able to attack with them to get them experience? What good are those extra GG's from Imperialistic if you can't get a war started to get those GG points coming? Protective gives you a low power graph while keeping you secure - allowing you to goad enemies into wars the other traits can't do nearly as safely. Low power graph + super elite defenders is the way to go, and that's protective - the false pinata luring guys into war. The fact that they also make good attackers is just gravy. And about the "sit in your cities waiting for your lands to be pillages"... The CPU pillages about as well as my grandmother would.

Oh, and one criticism towards Augustus in this situation... Imp requires lots of warfare to leverage its actual military advantage. Unless you need those fast settlers really bad, seeing as you won't be able to actually declare war, that GG speed benefit will be lost. Expansive for the fast, chopping workers might be better if rexing is your goal... But I'd take org over either for its fast, useful buildings and no-strings attached economic boost.

Protective is a powerful warring trait. Those drill archers/gunpowder units not only make incredible stack and captured city defenders, but they also make very effective attackers. What's more, drill IV is unmatched in conjunction with siege (lots of attacks with little to no damage to your archer/gunpowder force), which has the distinct advantage of not being bound by any resources.

Bottom line? If you can't war well with protective, that is your problem, not the trait's. I'm a primarily Immortal player, huge maps, 14 civs, and protective is in my eyes the ideal military trait for what he's planning. What good are loads of combat macemen if they are expensive, ineffective defenders and you can't declare war with them and put them on the offensive? What good are charismatic units low upgrade thresholds if there's a good chance you won't even be able to attack with them to get them experience? What good are those extra GG's from Imperialistic if you can't get a war started to get those GG points coming? Protective gives you a low power graph while keeping you secure - allowing you to goad enemies into wars the other traits can't do nearly as safely. Low power graph + super elite defenders is the way to go, and that's protective - the false pinata luring guys into war. The fact that they also make good attackers is just gravy. And about the "sit in your cities waiting for your lands to be pillages"... The CPU pillages about as well as my grandmother would.

Oh, and one criticism towards Augustus in this situation... Imp requires lots of warfare to leverage its actual military advantage. Unless you need those fast settlers really bad, seeing as you won't be able to actually declare war, that GG speed benefit will be lost. Expansive for the fast, chopping workers might be better if rexing is your goal... But I'd take org over either for its fast, useful buildings and no-strings attached economic boost.

Im not saying the trait is useless, i love it when playing as the chinese.. But it certainly isnt the best trait, the promotion ability of charismatic can easily challenge the extra drill promotion archers get in terms of usefullness. And the extra happiness is surely better then being able to defend your citys a bit easier, the extra tile you can work can give you quite a few additional units during the span of the game.

Although the ai doesnt pillage that well, constant pillaging will hurt your empire, especially when the ai targets cottages or important resources. When you let the ai roam in your empire your losing control of it, the damage they do will slow you down.

Id say its better to have a tech advantage over the enemy (fin), or more production and stronger units (char), more options (phil) or a few wonders that boost your overall strenght (ind) then to have the ability to execute a certain strategy a bit better that is arguably not that strong.

But well.. since you play immortal and i play monarch i guess your opinion matters a bit more :sad:

Siesta, the problem with his situation and what you're saying is this... He can't declare war. If he's going to war, it is going to be because they declare war on him. Now, assuming he DOES want to fight someone, how can he goad them into attacking him? If his power graph is high, this because *very* difficult against any but the most insane opponents. If his power graph is low though, he's very vulnerable to attacks that cripple his empire. How to solve this? Have a small force, keeping his power graph low, but a very potent defensive force that will be able to smash initial stacks of doom in spite of a numbers disadvantage.

Now, how do you get a potent force without either A) tailoring your empire for war, or B) being at war frequently and training up powerful units. In this case, A is costly and maybe even counterproductive in a "I can't declare war" game, and B requires people going to war with you - which is difficult to do if you're keeping a solid defensive force around. Protective solves both problems, because you can get heavily upgraded units with minimal effort (only need vassalage or theocracy, not both) and keep your power graph low while being quite secure (protective longbows handle up to 3x their numbers on the defensive - and that's including siege, macemen, whatever - and can be whipped cheaply in a jam)

Charismatic is very good for its happiness bonus, true... But its actual military bonus is questionable in this circumstance. Unless he's going to war, he's not going to be getting the experience required to make his units actually capitalize on that bonus - you need to groom charismatic units. Protective, not so much - they come out of the gate reasonable defenders without any experience at all. At five experience, they either become brick wall defenders or very potent drill attackers/stack and city defenders. In the scenario he's describing, the fact that he can't declare war really takes a notch off of the usefulness of charismatic. I wouldn't like to try defending my territory against someone elses' attack with a small, untrained charismatic army - a small protective army though... Well, I do it all the time.

As for it being "not the best trait" and charismatic being better than the "extra drill promotion"... Well, for one, it doesn't just give you drill, and that CG is huge in practical application advancing through enemy forts, holding enemy cities. The drill... Well, it's offensive and defensive abilities are extremely underrated - being able to wipe out injured units with little to no health loss, being able to take siege shots with very limited injury, being uninjured by units with an odds disadvantage (like just about anything hitting them in a city). Drill IV + CGI longbows are, in my eyes, the most effective all 'round units of their time period when considering equivalent upgrades, and the closest to a do-everything unit you can get.

My opinion isn't worth more in this case, and I respect that your arguments are well put together and show a lot of experience and knowledge of the game. But, give protective another shot - it's the ultimate "do a lot with a little" military trait, and people don't tend to give it enough credit in that role. Charismatic is the trait I'd consider rivaling protective for military traits in the OP's context, but that's more because of the happiness bonus than how much it would help him militarily in this case. Protective would stand to help him a ton from a military standpoint - charismatic, more from an economic/empire stability standpoint. That's my opinion.

Siesta, the problem with his situation and what you're saying is this... He can't declare war. If he's going to war, it is going to be because they declare war on him. Now, assuming he DOES want to fight someone, how can he goad them into attacking him? If his power graph is high, this because *very* difficult against any but the most insane opponents. If his power graph is low though, he's very vulnerable to attacks that cripple his empire. How to solve this? Have a small force, keeping his power graph low, but a very potent defensive force that will be able to smash initial stacks of doom.

Well I think a civ that has a bit of a aggressive personality can be taunted into war by getting him to furious if the power ratings are about the same. It wont work with peacefull nations which is a shame but not every game has to be won by taking over enemys.



Now, how do you get a potent force without either A) tailoring your empire for war, or B) being at war frequently and training up powerful units. In this case, A is costly, and B requires people going to war with you - which is difficult to do if you're keeping a solid defensive force around. Protective solves both problems, because you can get heavily upgraded units with minimal effort and keep your power graph low while being quite secure.


It seems you prefer to maximize the effectivity of the resources you have, I prefer to have more resources. Protective might give a advantage in the military part of the game, but so does charismatic, charismatic however will also give you a advantage with non-war things, and this challenge is just asking for a builders solution.


Charismatic is very good for its happiness bonus, true... But its actual military bonus is questionable in this circumstance. Unless he's going to war, he's not going to be getting the experience required to make his units actually capitalize on that bonus - you need to groom charismatic units. Protective, not so much - they come out of the gate reasonable defenders without any experience at all. At five experience, they either become brick wall defenders or very potent drill attackers/stack defenders. In the scenario he's describing, the fact that he can't declare war really takes a notch off of the usefulness of charismatic. I wouldn't like to try defending my territory against someone elses' attack with a small, untrained charismatic army - a small protective army though... Well, I do it all the time.

Thats a great point, the initial defense will be alot weaker... And its not likely hes fighting 2-3 wars per game, if he does the military strenght will equal out though.


My opinion isn't worth more in this case, and I respect that your arguments are well put together and show a lot of experience and knowledge of the game. But, give protective another shot - it's the ultimate "do a lot with a little" military trait, and people don't tend to give it enough credit in that role. Charismatic is the trait I'd consider rivaling protective for military traits in the OP's context, but that's more because of the happiness bonus than how much it would help him militarily in this case. Protective would stand to help him a ton from a military standpoint - charismatic, more from an economic/empire stability standpoint. That's my opinion.

Ill play as the native americans next game i think.. I was arguing about the use of dog warriors in another thread and id like to give them another try aswell.
Picking char just for its military strenght would be a bit strange indeed, its the whole package thats intresting. For the sake of argument it was the easiest to pick the military part of char since its hard to give a value of the effects of fin, ind and phi on the military.

Looks like rexing is the best bet for most of the maps. I would say Cathy.

How do you define ally?

Okay. I’ve done a little research. The following Civs have Fishing as a base technology which makes them unsuitable for this challenge (since several maps have little or no open water on them, which also renders navies of little value in those cases): USA, Carthage, Dutch, England, Greece, Japan, Native America, Portugal, Rome, Spain, Viking.

In addition, you guys have convinced me that Aggressive, Imperialistic, (and Charismatic maybe since there is debate here) are undesirable traits for my leader to have for this challenge. This means that the following Civs are also unsuitable (in addition to the above Civs): Aztec, Babylonia, Byzantine, Celt, HRE, Mongolia, Zulu.

This leaves the following Civs as potential candidates: Arabia, China, Egypt, Ethiopia, France, Germany, Incan, Indian, Khmer, Korea, Malinese, Mayan, Ottoman, Persia, Russia, Spain, Sumeria.

The Leader Traits that seem most recommended by you guys so far are: Protective, Expansive, Financial, Industrious, Philosophical, Organized, (with Charismatic maybe since there is debate here).

My personal style of play is that I like to build wonders and specialists. And since I won’t be fighting many wars of aggression to capture wonders that have been built by other Civs, then Industrious seems to me to be a solid choice. Financial also seems like a strong choice no matter what kind of game you are playing. The only leader who is Ind/Fin is Huayna Capac of the Incan.

The Incas start with Mysticism and Agriculture. Religion is a way that I can conduct “warfare” against my rivals through the use of missionaries, etc. Religion is also synergistic with Financial once I can get my religious buildings up and running. Agriculture is also a strong starting Tech for obvious reasons.

The Incan UU is the Quecha Warrior which is of decent value early in the game (for scouting and for fighting against raging barbarians). So, even though I cannot employ a Quecha rush, I can still get some use out of them for the early centuries of a Marathon game (i.e., they will not be wasted or useless even without the ability to rush).

The Incan UB is the Terrace which is a very nice building (an upgraded Granary that adds culture and doubles population growth = sweet). The Terrace becomes available early in the game (a definite bonus) and it has value for the entire game.

So, the questions for you experts now become: Is there something that I am missing? Are there flaws in my reasoning that should make me reconsider using the Incas and Huayna Capac for this challenge?

ADDENDUM: Shadowkx asked what the definition of an Ally is for the purposes of this challenge. A vassal Civ is considered an Ally. A member of a Defensive Pact is considered an Ally. A member of a Full Alliance is also clearly an Ally.

I think that the combination of religious “warfare”, espionage, and economic “warfare” will give me many opportunities to damage my rivals even if I have to wait for them to attack first. And, as others have pointed out, if I can goad others into attacking first, then I think that I’ll still have many opportunities to fight wars over the course of this challenge.

Wonders are likely to feature a lot, so any PHI or IND leader could do well. Huayna Capac would have been my number 2 choice after Augustus and I can think of only one argument against him: Some people might not read your opening post properly and randomly remark that Quechuas are cheesy and your victory meaningless.

The Quechua is, strangely enough, another fine UU for your purposes - early barbarian defence, and you can build them until you get Macemen (or far longer if you have no need for hunting). You'll save hammers for garrison troops... and if you finally need to upgrade them they'll have a free promotion.

The UB depends on your playstyle. In most other leaders it would be excellent... but in an Industrious leader starting with Mysticism it loses most of its early appeal for sheer convenience. It's still good if you want to aggressively block opponents, and later on getting an instant 6 culture in newly captured cities is very noticable.

I already made my argument for IND; FIN is another fine economic trait that helps your early builder game.

Iranon,

Thanks for your input. I still have one more day to make a decision (I'm starting the challenge on Friday).

One of my friends here is trying to convince me to choose Roosevelt (Ind/Org). He claims that starting with Fishing won't hurt me as much as I think it will.

Anyway, my current choice as of today is still the Incas with Huayna Capac. But I definitely remain open to other possibilities if you guys can show me the light.

It should be noted that a power ratio of 1.4 (you have 140% of your neighbor's power) is as "inviting" to attack you for most of the AI leaders when they are close to you as a power ratio of 0.1 (you have 10% of your neighbor's power)! For those interested the mechanics are roughly sketched out here (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=286180&page=5).

If defending a large empire with a minimal army was a real criterion, I'd vote for the Numidian Cavalry. Mobile, 50% against Melee and Cats, Flank Attack against Cats and Trebs, free Flanking I and very easy to promote further (with Stables and Charismatic) + immune to first strikes (THE counter-argument against protective for defense). Hannibal is a very strong leader, unfortunately his potential is a bit constrained on dry maps...

Iranon,

Thanks for your input. I still have one more day to make a decision (I'm starting the challenge on Friday).

One of my friends here is trying to convince me to choose Roosevelt (Ind/Org). He claims that starting with Fishing won't hurt me as much as I think it will.

Anyway, my current choice as of today is still the Incas with Huayna Capac. But I definitely remain open to other possibilities if you guys can show me the light.

Fishing wont hurt you much, and its a strange criterium for a challenge like this. Org is however alot weaker then fin in this challenge since you wont have tons of land, and organized shines when you have alot of land. Capac is one of the better choices if your not going to rex, rexing seems like the way to go here so other leaders might be better for this challenge (mainly the expansive, charismatic and creative leaders).

Edit: I might be missing something here, but shuffle only generates a archipelago, pangea, continents or fractal map here... So that would be 8 games instead of 58. Read the description of shuffle, maybe it says something else for you.

Well, if you can't DOW anyone short of an ally being attacked, then you'll need to focus on another victory type than domination. For that, use the following:

Abraham Lincoln (Phil/Char) - An increased happiness, a quick promotion for your troops that defend your cities, and the Phil bonus helps your GP farms. Though I never volunatarily chose him, I got him on Random and he ended up being one of my easiest wins without warfare. The American late game units are also very handy.

Qin Shi Huang (Ind/Prot) - If you were looking for a cultural victory, you can't get much better of a choice than this guy. Build wonders quickly, then protect them well.

Louis XIV (Ind/Crea) - IMHO, a slightly weaker choice than Qin Shi Huang, but that extra 2 culture per turn from the start might just tip the scales in your favor for a cultural win, along with the fast wonder building.

Pericles (Crea/Phil) - My favorite "non-violent" choice. This guy should get a Space Victory and pwn in tech, every game if you play him correctly.

Sitting Bull (Phil/Prot) - A very solid choice if you want well-defended cities and GP farms. There is a slight beginning-game lack of parity in his starting techs, as he doesn't start with hunting and mysticism (like he should, since his UB requires Myst, and the benefit of the UB requires archery), but the advantage of being able to build "Axemen" without actually having access to copper is very handy indeed. Once you have Mysticism and Archery your archers will withstand ANYTHING. Especially if you build your cities on a hill, and put a wall on them. They will stand up well past even cats and trebs. If you've gotten longbowmen at this point, you might just manage to withstand cannons as well.

Any of the above should make for a solid contender under your rules, and under a variety of conditions regardless of the map or your initial placement.

Fishing wont hurt you much, and its a strange criterium for a challenge like this. Org is however alot weaker then fin in this challenge since you wont have tons of land, and organized shines when you have alot of land. Capac is one of the better choices if your not going to rex, rexing seems like the way to go here so other leaders might be better for this challenge (mainly the expansive, charismatic and creative leaders).

Edit: I might be missing something here, but shuffle only generates a archipelago, pangea, continents or fractal map here... So that would be 8 games instead of 58. Read the description of shuffle, maybe it says something else for you.


Well, that revelation about the way "Shuffle" works sucks. Thanks for pointing that out. I was given this challenge by somebody else. Now I have to check with my friend to find out what he was talking about.

But, assuming that he and I can figure out how I can play this challenge in the spirit in which it was given (using all the maps randomly except custom continents and fantasy realm, maybe a dice roll or something will work), then I still want to ask you a question. Do you think that the Incas and Huayna Capac are a poor choice for me?

Huayna capac is never a poor choice for any map. check forums for his fame. I did not name him for no reason. Basicly you want to focus on IND PHI and FIN. IND FIN is Huayna. PHI FIN is Elizabeth. PHI IND as we all know, do not exist.

Do you think that the Incas and Huayna Capac are a poor choice for me?

HC is an extremely strong choice, but the problem is you get no "cred" from the Civ community for playing him. HC and Darius are considered by most here to be overpowered with the combination of their traits, UUs, UBs, etc. They're fantastic choices, but also unimpressive if you do really well because it's expected that you do well.

That's one of the reasons I recommended someone like Abe or Sitting Bull... they get very little Forum-time on here, and are generally considered underpowered. So playing them well gets you cred, and forces you to rethink your game outside of the cottage cheese mindset.

HC is an extremely strong choice, but the problem is you get no "cred" from the Civ community for playing him. HC and Darius are considered by most here to be overpowered with the combination of their traits, UUs, UBs, etc. They're fantastic choices, but also unimpressive if you do really well because it's expected that you do well.

That's one of the reasons I recommended someone like Abe or Sitting Bull... they get very little Forum-time on here, and are generally considered underpowered. So playing them well gets you cred, and forces you to rethink your game outside of the cottage cheese mindset.

Well, I'm still relatively new as a player. I'm not interested in "cred" just yet. I figure after playing a 58-game challenge (assuming I can figure out how to determine which map to play since "Shuffle" doesn't work the way we here thought it did), then I'll be skilled enough at the game to start branching out into other possibilities.

Also, the challenge restriction on not being able to declare war does hurt the Incas since they cannot rush.

But I am also pleased that even though I am relatively new, I was able to figure out that the Incas would be a good choice. Tells me that my analysis of what would be "good" was not off-track.

Settle the leader debate and hit random. Then play the hand you are dealt:)

Well, I'm still relatively new as a player. I'm not interested in "cred" just yet.


Fair enough. Above all, it's a game and the primary rule is that you should play what you enjoy. HC is an excellent choice to learn the game on for the following reasons:

* The Quechua unit is fantastic. It is not only a good intial rushing unit vs. archers (and on Monarch+ opponents start with an archer), but also it carries that bonus through to the Axeman upgrade, which means you now have a 5/1 unit that is +100% vs. melee AND +100% vs. archers. Throw in a couple of Raider upgrades, and you've got a better city conqueror than swordsmen.

* The Financial trait will give you a lot of leeway in REXing as the extra gold generated from prime locations will cancel out the maintenance cost of a city as well as the cost of civics (HFoG). Or alternately, it will help you with tech, as the extra commerce tiles could instead be converted to extra science.

* The Industrious trait allows you to build wonders faster, and assuming you choose your wonders with care to specifically compliment your strategy (like getting all the science wonders for a space race victory), then you can seriously augment your plan. The faster Forge is also quite nice in midgame "new" or "newly captured" cities, as this is often one of the first things I'll build in midgame peacetime, or the second thing I'll build in wartime (the first being walls)

* The Terrace is great because all your cities -need- a granary anyway, and the extra culture bonus means you don't have to worry about building a monument, temple, or monastary to get that nice fat cross. It effectively grants you a second trait (Creative) for a very low cost.

* The starting techs are among the best: Mysticism is almost REQUIRED to found an early religion on Monarch or later, and the added bonus of having the Financial Trait means that you have a MASSIVE head start towards religion if your settler ends up within the radius of a 2+ commerce tile, like spices on a riverside. Thus pretty much ensuring you'll get Buddhism if you try for it. Agriculture will allow you to take advantage of food resources early on, promoting rapid city growth in the most crucial time of the game, and gives your worker something to do immediately if you build it before other techs let you build tile improvements.

So, yeah, HC is probably the single most powerful combination of traits, UU, UB, and has the greatest number of strategies available to him from the getgo. The only thing that will really determine your strategy with HC is your placement at the beginning of the game. And with your particular challenge, it should allow you to learn a wide variety of strategies. The only problem with HC is that he's so powerful that, as I said, he really nets no cred on anything short of like...deity or something. So after your challenge, you could be all like "Oh, hey, I won on 55 out of 58 maps with HC" and the response would be mostly "meh" with a couple of warm "gratz" from our friendliest members. Same with Darius.


then I'll be skilled enough at the game to start branching out into other possibilities.


If you're still just learning game mechanics and whatnot, then yes, but by your 10th game or so, you should have a solid enough grasp on how the game works to start branching out. You'll notice a lot of people here, myself included, heavily recommend using "Random Leader" to learn new strategies. The reason being is severalfold:

* You are forced to learn a different strategy to suppliment the strengths of the leader, and then have to adjust it based on your start position.

* It teaches you how to play against a wide variety of opponents.

* It teaches you how to play upon the strengths and weaknesses of the various UUs and UBs.

* It will inevitably speed up your game as you learn what works with who and what doesn't.

* It allows you to experiment with crazy new tactics on otherwise unrelated leaders (like trying a space race victory with the Japanese when domination might be more easy)

etc... there's a lot more to be learned playing random leaders than there is just playing one. However, if you want to study one leader to an incredible extent as for the possibilities they are capable of, I really couldn't think of a better challenge than the one you're naming.


Also, the challenge restriction on not being able to declare war does hurt the Incas since they cannot rush.


Not really. I've never really been into rushing. My strategy -usually- centers around either having 6-8 strong cities by 1AD, or to have one seriously powerful Capital city full of wonders along with 4-6 smaller sattellite cities supporting expansion on their own. With rushing, unless I cheat, I usually end up tech-gimped and only manage to take 1 city when I could have settled 2 in the same amount of time. Not rushing has never hurt my HC game, he's just too packed with vitamens and minerals.


Settle the leader debate and hit random. Then play the hand you are dealt:)

Good strategy but doesn't fit his challenge. He has to pick the same leader each time. If I just _HAD_ to play the same leader for 58 EPIC games in a row, I would definitely not leave the leader up to chance.