Maybe I am stating the obvious, but I have been playing some games lately with KK and am having enormous success (settings: Fractal/Emperor/Normal/Standard). My best-ever game is also with him.

Warmongering synergy:

Creative: Excellent early city placement, no need for monuments, no need to tech mysticism path, cheap libraries for post-crash tech, cheap theatres/coliseums for mid-game culture/happiness

Aggressive: Cheap barracks, stronger units, access to post-combat1 promos, excellent for drafting

Trait synergy: No monument and cheap barracks means early cities setup extremely quickly for war preparation

Hunting: Starting with a scout means early knowledge of surroundings and location of first victim

Wheel: 1 tech away from horses, 2 from axes, pre-road connections

Tech synergy: The starting techs playout really nice in conjunction with traits

UU: Keshik is great for blitzing opponents who are a bit too far away for an early rush

UB: Boosts UU further; also great for elephants, knights, cuirrs, cavalry

Best case scenario: Start inland, near an opponent or three, copper in vicinity, access to horses

Worst case scenario: Start coastal with need to develop seafood, limited or no nearby opponents

Thoughts? I never had KK pegged as a powerhouse, but I am having a lot of success with him recently

Mwja you are stating the obvious :)

The mongols are a great race, their UU is imho still one of the best, and creative is probably one of the best traits imho.

The thing is people in general dont like warmongers I guess, therefor Spi/fin/philo leaders are often considere top notch.

Darius/Huayna/Juul are obvious favourites. Together with Ghandi/Pericles/Ramesses.

But if you want a good change of pace, and a pretty darn good leader Kublai is certainly one of the better ones.

How soon can you put the UU online and be ready to go on normal?

I always have a tough time getting horsemen up and running.

How soon can you put the UU online and be ready to go on normal?

I always have a tough time getting horsemen up and running.

Usually by the 3rd city. One city for military, one for finance. I usually go the worker techs->HBR immediate and can launch a full-scale attack around 1000BC, or shortly after.

This post seems to state the obvious. Not quite sure the point of it.

Even rushing Holkans with KK is plain sailing! This was proven in a earlier game posted on the forum.

Lets see. Tech to AH find horse. Build 2-3 cities. Pump out KK and invade 2-3 AI.

The hardest part with this leader/ great UU is recovering the economy. If you capture and keep too many cities with high upkeep this can kill a game. It also opens up lots of empty space for barbs.

You do still need to cover the basics such as getting key techs like writing, codes of law and currency.

Overall this post just seems about glorifying an over powerful unit.

Whats ironic is we spend our time telling people off for playing over powerful leaders all the time and here we are doing just that.

Now the question is could you take KK to immortal/deity level and still rush the AI with ease?

Now the question is could you take KK to immortal/deity level and still rush the AI with ease?

No, so why do you think its overly powerful? I have only used HAs or Keshiks on Deity when the target was boxed in with no copper, or against barbs. Spears will wreck them. Iirc, Keshiks are same as HAs only ignore terrain movement costs, right? That is helpful but I don't think it qualifies as overpowered.

I would say that the Mysticism path can be delayed but not ignored completely. You still need Mysticism ----> Meditation/Polytheism---->Priesthood-----> Monarchy unless you're building the Pyramids. I'd much rather use all those hammers to build units though.

KK = Kublai Khan, not Keshiks. I'm not glorifying the UU so much as Kublai as a strong leader.

@ Whiskey_Lord, indeed you eventually need Monarchy, but I prefer to trade for it if possible, instead going up the alpha/currency/col economy path.

No, so why do you think its overly powerful? I have only used HAs or Keshiks on Deity when the target was boxed in with no copper, or against barbs. Spears will wreck them. Iirc, Keshiks are same as HAs only ignore terrain movement costs, right? That is helpful but I don't think it qualifies as overpowered.

They also come with a built-in first strike, but have the penalty of not having first strike immunity w/o flanking II.

It's pretty easy to crush someone with them on immortal. Deity? Probably not, but I remember Rusten taking a Deity AI out with HAs not too long ago, and AFAIK that AI had metal.

No, so why do you think its overly powerful? I have only used HAs or Keshiks on Deity when the target was boxed in with no copper, or against barbs. Spears will wreck them. Iirc, Keshiks are same as HAs only ignore terrain movement costs, right? That is helpful but I don't think it qualifies as overpowered.

When you upgrade to flanking II a lot of them withdrawl after an attack! 40% chance? With Mongol UB this is quite easy! As i said I have used this UU aganst Holkans and still had no trouble over running the AI's 3-4 cities. HA unit is still strong but slower in movement and no UB bonus.

1-2 spears is not going to stop a stack of keshiks with flanking II (I called them kk due to spelling KeshiKs. I did notice the leaders name was the same. I was just being lazy.)

The ignoring of terrain movement allows a much faster attack and stops a lot of whipping of units by the AI.

On the leader front creative is a great warring tech.

Everything just seems to work for this leader.

One of my least favourite leaders. AGG when I want to carve out my empire with a mounted UU? 2 starting techs unlikely to let me work good tiles off the bat? UU and UB depending on the same resource (well, there's also elephants...)? A UU that requires techst that do squat for the economy and no real leg up from traits economy-wise?
Give me someone else... pretty much ANYONE else!

*

The UU is interesting though. We're strongly pushed towards the flanking line since otherwise it's worse against the most common city defenders than the unit it replaces; useless in a catapult-driven war where we want raw strength.
If we want to abuse its mobility and throw them against cities unsupported, we're going to promote it along the flanking line anyway, in which case it's a clear step up. Fortunately, the AI doesn't generally punish the extreme vulnerability of this approach.

I wonder how its usefulness scales with game speed... slow games favour tactical tricks which the Keshik can pull off quite well. Fast games, however, face a huge problem with getting units to the front line before an advantage fades away and the speed is going to matter. Hmm...

We're strongly pushed towards the flanking line since otherwise it's worse against the most common city defenders than the unit it replaces;

No, it (usually) isn't. The only time archers are better against keshiks than horse archers is when they have more than one first strike. So, only for protective civs (first strike chance with drill I) and mali (who really isn't a great early rush candidate no matter what you're using). Any other archer unit will have 1 first strike, negated by the keshik's (or be a rare first strike behind due to flanking II).

The obnoxious thing about defending vs keshiks is the terrain movement. They can traverse even forest hills with 1 move point cost. They can traverse ANYTHING with 1 move point cost. The AI has trouble shuffling defenders to handle that, you can often double-threaten cities, cut roads, hide on a side of a river (getting the rare mounted defense bonus if they attack across it), and pillage metal *very* early in the war.

A sentry keshik is helpful in these situations too. Hill sentries can see 3 tiles away, so you can really dance around opposing forces and hit them at opportune times (especially if they have to chase you through forests/etc you're actually faster in their territory).

If their leaders had better traits (like, for example, Napoleon leading the mongols) they would probably be considered as powerful as any other early game unit that gets favoritism, like prats or immortals.

Anyway the important thing is to quick-strike metals and win the rush before longbows become a major factor. On high difficulties the window is tight (similar to any early rush), but it can be done on normal speed in the right situations.

The single greatest hindrance to a HA rush is getting HBR in time. Still, that tech trades decently once you have it in most games.

Pretty new around here and to Civ, but I see a lot of people getting dogged for using or ushered away from playing certain leaders because they're deemed "too powerful" or using a certain trait as a crutch. It's kind of disturbing, really. This is a video game if I'm not mistaken. We're not cutting corners on our marriages or mortgages or taxes or something like that, we're playing a video game and if someone wants to play a certain leader that gives THEM an advantage, what's the big deal? It's some great honor to only use Saladin every game and come brag about it.

It's kind of like everyone's an employee of the same company and all you guys feel this guy over here is cutting corners and have to out him and make him play by your rules. Weak.

Pretty new around here and to Civ, but I see a lot of people getting dogged for using or ushered away from playing certain leaders because they're deemed "too powerful" or using a certain trait as a crutch. It's kind of disturbing, really. This is a video game if I'm not mistaken. We're not cutting corners on our marriages or mortgages or taxes or something like that, we're playing a video game and if someone wants to play a certain leader that gives THEM an advantage, what's the big deal? It's some great honor to only use Saladin every game and come brag about it.

It's kind of like everyone's an employee of the same company and all you guys feel this guy over here is cutting corners and have to out him and make him play by your rules. Weak.

I think the issue is people just playing one leader all the time. The combo of Keshiks, KK and his UB makes makes the mongols strong.

It would be a bit like me playing HC every game and rushing my nearest neighbour with Quelchas! You dont learn the game by playing leaders you can manipulate so well every game.

No one is saying dont play these leaders. Yes they can be a huge amount of fun!! Just dont become dependent on one leader to win games. There are other nations to play.

Pretty new around here and to Civ, but I see a lot of people getting dogged for using or ushered away from playing certain leaders because they're deemed "too powerful" or using a certain trait as a crutch. It's kind of disturbing, really. This is a video game if I'm not mistaken. We're not cutting corners on our marriages or mortgages or taxes or something like that, we're playing a video game and if someone wants to play a certain leader that gives THEM an advantage, what's the big deal? It's some great honor to only use Saladin every game and come brag about it.

It's kind of like everyone's an employee of the same company and all you guys feel this guy over here is cutting corners and have to out him and make him play by your rules. Weak.

The advice is given, often with different reasons for it.

Still, a variety of leaders used shows much more of the depth in this game, because you have to adapt and don't rely on one approach to win.

Although the custom settings can vary games just as much. Marathon speed, messing with tech trades, AGG AI, picking opponents etc. can all have a larger impact on the game than choosing someone like darius or even the incans.

If you don't believe marathon speed > inca, then try a standard sized map on immortal/normal where your opponent spawns more than 10 tiles away. Then try a stock chariot rush marathon with the same difficulty :p.

But the depth and adaptation potential in this game is amazing. If you start looking into mods, it goes even further.

One of my least favourite leaders. AGG when I want to carve out my empire with a mounted UU? 2 starting techs unlikely to let me work good tiles off the bat? UU and UB depending on the same resource (well, there's also elephants...)? A UU that requires techst that do squat for the economy and no real leg up from traits economy-wise?
Give me someone else... pretty much ANYONE else!

*

The UU is interesting though. We're strongly pushed towards the flanking line since otherwise it's worse against the most common city defenders than the unit it replaces; useless in a catapult-driven war where we want raw strength.
If we want to abuse its mobility and throw them against cities unsupported, we're going to promote it along the flanking line anyway, in which case it's a clear step up. Fortunately, the AI doesn't generally punish the extreme vulnerability of this approach.

I wonder how its usefulness scales with game speed... slow games favour tactical tricks which the Keshik can pull off quite well. Fast games, however, face a huge problem with getting units to the front line before an advantage fades away and the speed is going to matter. Hmm...

I look at it this way:

Copper? Agg/Cre axe rush
No copper, but horses: Keshik rush

Chances are you will have one or the other. I think the axe rush is actually stronger in many cases.

I agree the lack of economic bonuses can be a negative. It's probably worse at the highest levels. But, I am finding that if the cards fall right on emperor, I can stream roll through one civ and onto the next while living off the plunder. In the end, I come out with a lot of land. And, everyone knows how I feel about that! :)

KK does not exactly have a lack of economic bonuses. He can whip fast libraries for a good SE game early on.

I think that both Khans are the best war-mongers in the game. The UU/UB synergy is one of the best in the game and is completely independant of the Agressive trati which is a plus in my book. Of the two I prefer Grandpa Ghengis, but that may be more personal preference.

Thoughts? I never had KK pegged as a powerhouse, but I am having a lot of success with him recently

My thoughts... He can be a powerhouse, as much as Romans can be a power-house on lower levels. But he falls apart when you climb up the ladder...

I agree that on immortal/deity he may not be the best choice.

I also agree that the cheap libraries definitely come in handy.

I look at it this way:

Copper? Agg/Cre axe rush
No copper, but horses: Keshik rush

Exactly. This is what makes the Khans so strong during the early game: you're almost guaranteed a rush oppurtunity. What's more, both also gets enhanced rexxing from Creative or Imperialistic to make up for those times when a rush isn't in order. It's like nothing can go wrong during the BCs of the game!

I find myself rushing with axes more often than with Keshiks when I play as the Khans.

Well people saying he aint so good look at it this way.

Begingame is key in Civ. You have a good begingame, you will have good overall game.

Crea + Agg are prob the best earlygame traits.

Couple that with a good earlygame UU, and a good earlygame UB, that has one of the longest longevity's and you got a killer combo.

On immortal you still can own well with this leader, since I barely played deity I can not say anything with pure certainty. However deity is it's own little game.

The fact that people in general do not tend to like early-aggression is the most likely case this leader is not a favourite.

What makes AGG and CRE the best early traits?

What about CAR? Easy extra happyness (read pop) very early as well as warring bonuses.

Or EXP? Cheap workers so you have better tiles to work sooner or more chopping potential.

How about IMP so you can get that vital settler out a few turns sooner and snag an important resourse before the AIs?

Surely the "best" eary game traits are the ones that you leverage for your specific situation.

Oh yer I love CRE and AGG ;)

As for KK I enjoy him as a leader but I would prefer his UB to offer an economic bonus (apart from the "razing economy" it supports) than depend on the chance of horses and the use of mounted units (at least in the early game as by the mid game you wil almost definatly have some horses).

I remeber winning my first Diplomatic victory with KK. Well Diplomation.

What makes AGG and CRE the best early traits?

What about CAR? Easy extra happyness (read pop) very early as well as warring bonuses.

Or EXP? Cheap workers so you have better tiles to work sooner or more chopping potential.

How about IMP so you can get that vital settler out a few turns sooner and snag an important resourse before the AIs?

Surely the "best" eary game traits are the ones that you leverage for your specific situation.

Oh yer I love CRE and AGG ;)

As for KK I enjoy him as a leader but I would prefer his UB to offer an economic bonus (apart from the "razing economy" it supports) than depend on the chance of horses and the use of mounted units (at least in the early game as by the mid game you wil almost definatly have some horses).

I remeber winning my first Diplomatic victory with KK. Well Diplomation.

Border pop in 8 turns allowing resource grab and 10% on the Keshiks. Happiness can also be determined by resources. With a good rush You'll have plenty of happiness resources in theory. ;)

Imperialist allows quicker expansion but the pain of needing monuments can restrict an early rush.

Again I am just considering the traits in regards to the leader KK.

All of this assumes you have a horse resource. ;)

Crea is by far the best earlygame trait. Debating it here would be pointless since there are dozens of threads that will debate it and this aint the topic for it.

Agressive is an underrated trait. For its purpose, early agression it is unrivaled, even by char.
Since early succesfull agression is imho the best way of begingame this makes it a very strong trait.
Yes for this leader and this mindset, but the thing is people thinking lately more in terms of GP farms and cottagespam.

As I say I love CRE its a real REXers trait. What to set up a block? Just stick down some cities and your done. No need for a monument and the agonising wait for the border pop.

AGG speaks for itself really. If you have a close nieghbor then the early rush is on (resourses permiting).

The only thing is that for my play style (I don't rush often and prefer to REX) I'd rather swap the AGG for a different trait such as EXP.

As an aside if I'm CAR I nearly always try to bag Stone Henge as its more easy happness and a bit like a poor mans version of CRE.

Agg is a hit or miss trait. When it misses (e.g., when you are isolated) it is really bad, but when it hits, it is quite nice.

Mongols are great if you get horses. If not, then you lose your UU and UB.

Mongols are great if you get horses. If not, then you lose your UU and UB. The bonus still applies to units like knights and cavalry.

Worst comes to worst an axe rush to secure some horse. Unless some cruel person WB all the horse resources from the map and started you next to sitting bull and mansa.

after seeing this thread, I started a game as Kublai. Took over half the world by 900AD.

Kublai is an excellent warmonger.

after seeing this thread, I started a game as Kublai. Took over half the world by 900AD.

Kublai is an excellent warmonger.

I found ocean really held me up in my game a few months back. I was using knights to finish off the AI. Crazy!!

With any good early commerce either mongol leader is an incredible warmonger. Get them HBR and archery with even a bit of speed and they're devastating.

Kublai is the better of the two IMO because of the CRE...you're typically dealing with the AI's city placement as you take their cities, so CRE helps make sure all the resources are accessible more quickly.

I think my favorite game ever was Kublai with gold and horses both within 3 tiles of his capital.

I found ocean really held me up in my game a few months back. I was using knights to finish off the AI. Crazy!!

don't feel bad. I bet Genghis felt the same way trying to invade japan.

Actually the reason why I said half the world is because the ocean has also slowed me down too, or I would have won before gunpowder.

If I were playing Kublai, I'd first check the map settings to be sure I was playing "Pangea."

don't feel bad. I bet Genghis felt the same way trying to invade japan.

Actually the reason why I said half the world is because the ocean has also slowed me down too, or I would have won before gunpowder.

[WARNING HISTORY NITPICKING ALERT!!!] Actually, it was Kublai who invaded Japan (and failed utterly.)

I think the issue is people just playing one leader all the time. [..] No one is saying dont play these leaders. [...] Just dont become dependent on one leader to win games. There are other nations to play.

Really? :huh:

I must admit I was really surprised when I read this. Playing the same leader, or even nation, twice in a row is something I could never do. I've tried once, but it really took the inspiration away from me. Nothing is as boring as playing a leader/nation that's been recently played. I have to at least play 4-5 games in between before I can return to the same leader.

So, have there been any poll on this topic yet? Could be interesting to see what kind of routines people have here.

Me

[WARNING HISTORY NITPICKING ALERT!!!] Actually, it was Kublai who invaded Japan (and failed utterly.)

Well then.

Maybe it's less a factor of mine and gumbolt's leadership and more of civ 4 being astoundingly historically accurate.