Civ 4 BTS Who is the best Leader to play?

Exactly, Bardolph. They tear through everything, you don't need iron or ironworking (so I was able to get construction before that), and there is no counter to them (I guess the best-case is either longbowmen or shock axes).

paydro said:

Exactly, Bardolph. They tear through everything, you don't need iron or ironworking (so I was able to get construction before that), and there is no counter to them (I guess the best-case is either longbowmen or shock axes).

Click to expand...

Chariots still counter them, though not quite as effectively as they counter regular Axes.

Go random. Adapt.

Hi,

Very interesting talk, I suppose every fanatic has its favorite way of playing. Personally, I'm too lazy to make extensive wars (gosh wars are so long).

So I tend to play mostly as a builder. In the previous opuses of Civ4, I did choose Hugan Capac a couple a times, but I would say that 50% of the time game went bad with him. I don't like the Quechua that much, it's ok if you have a civ right next to you at the begining, but that's it. Financial is nice, but a couple of times, I couldn't develop and build many cities, and then financial couldn't bring all its benefit, and I had no real militar power to compensate.

Right now I tend to prefer Augustus to HC. Augustus/Roman is a very well-rounded civ. First it has IND, which is a very powerful trait. Sometimes a set of a few wonders can be as powerful as another's leader trait. Think about the Mausoleum of Mausolleus, The Collossus, the Parthenon. Second, IMP brings an excellent complement to IND, it allows you to spread quickly in the beginning, having more cities means that some can build wonders, while others build armies, and it brings you more generals if you're involved in wars.

What is absolutely mandatory for Augustus is to found a religion and build the Great Wall, it helps you develop quickly at the beginning without fearing barbarians, and the religion (that you will try to spread at maximum) will be your financial support. You can forget rushing for hindouism and buddhism, but judaism is very easy if you directly rush for it (I always get it).

My beginning strategy is always like that : reasearch Judaism, build the Great Wall as soon as I have two towns, then build the Oracle and make sure to have the techs to be in reach of Metal Casting, then build the Collossus.

Cheers,

Fab

I think Portugesse is an interesting civ to play. Imperialist and expansive is a pretty good combo for rexxing. Start on a plains/hill and have the right forest nearby and you have a settler in 18 turns. That could be a second city by 3400 or 3500bc. By 2800bc you could have a third settler and have the second city churning out workers. by the time bronze working kicks in you can catch up on workers and reach 4 cities comfortably by 2000bc.

You do need to work on the finance side a bit though. The right land/terrain at start could be key too. Still an interesting combo of traits for a fast start with this leader.

3 pages ago someone dissed China's UU and UB.

Couldn't disagree more.

The UB never goes obsolete and is a very cheap and effective way to make sure conqured cities don't revolt. A culture corporation with the 25% culture bonus on a border city - amazing.

The UU can be used far after crossbowman would be obsolete because of the colataeral damage. They are amazing when someone comes at you (or you are coming at someone) with knights, pikeman, macemen. I hate the neccesity of buying siege units, especially early ones, and with China's UU that need is lessened. And then keep them around and kamikazee those suckers after they're obsolete.

I admit protective isn't a great trait, but playing Mao of China was one of the most balanced civs, perhaps the most balanced civ, I have played. Expansive for population growth, UB for cultural growth (combined with the coloseum +4 from that colosseum quest), and protective for security measures.

So yes I recomend playing China. I also recomend re-naming yourself Gza of the Wu-Tang Clan and naming all your cities after Wu-Tang members, albums, and various other things off of the Wu-Tang wikipedia article. I loved my time as leader of the Wu-Tangese empire.

My advice - pick whichever civilization you think has the most visceral fun apeal.

For a first leader for BTS - use the different leader / civilization option. I don't usually do this anymore, but I recommend it for your first, or at least for one of your first games. Why?

Because it is fun.

I didn't win my first couple of games on BTS. I was trying to figure out what civ / leader was the best combination. But I had an idea.

What would be a fun civ to play? I mean to really put your heart into? I waited for months to get a computer and BTS shipped to me and I had a lot of free time to think about this.

Why not lead the Bohemians? You know, a civilization that cares about music, theater, literature - a truly cultured civilization. A civilization that deserves to rule the world. They would have to be creative, of course, and they would also be imperialistic, because they like settling in new places, they don't like being tied down, and everyone else are just philistines so we want to take them over some day, when we're taking a break in-between writing great novels.

So Catherine for her traits, and the Greeks for their UB, and because the Greeks were the first or one of the first in real history to have a god dedicated to wine, go to theaters, and have orgies etc.

I named my leader Xuxa (after a Brazilian children show host who dressed provocatively and kissed everybody) Cicciolina (an Italian senator / porn-star). My cities were named after real Bohemian (Czech republic) towns, various "Bohemian" historical figures (Larus Latrec), and gay bars from the "famous gay bars" Wikipedia article. Stonewall was a much saught after border town, "The Werx" was a copper mining town that later had Ironworks etc.

So I wasn't going for what would be the best. I was going for what was the most fun. And it is in this way that I won my first BTS game. I had some very close calls and a low score when it was said and done, but it was my first BTS victory, and I think the emotional investment I put into it helped...and made it more FUN.

BTS = new BTS civ such as Babylon. Aggr/Org and a reddish pink color. The UU is the
Bowmen which is a good defender so you can build.
Financial and Quechas as a trait and UU are the most overrated on these boards.
Some of the better female leaders are Catherine (Russia= Good) Boudica (Celts=Good)
and Cleopatra (Egypt=Good) the first is like a chick that wants to be like an audrey hepurn , the second is a gal that is more like angolina jolie, and the third is like that real skinny good looking babe in high school. And there is Elizabeth and Isabella, the first a hag with Redcoats and the second the kind of good looking gal that tries to convert you to her religion first chance she gets.

troytheface said:

Quechas as a trait and UU are the most overrated on these boards..

Click to expand...

Are you being serious?

A 15 hammer Archer killer? The Quechua rush could win from positions you would have no business winning with other leaders. Without rushing you have a budget anti-barb unit that's available from move one, priceless at higher levels.

I'm glad that not everyone likes Quechuas, it makes me feel less like I cheated the times I played HC.

...in my humble opinion is the Celts.

I am not talking about leaders here, just UU and UB.

Sorry if I'm wrong about this, but I don't think the hill promotion helps you attack hills until level 3 and doesn't let you move double on hills until level 2 (or is it vice versa?).

And then the Dun goes obsolete eventually, plus you don't need walls in the first place in interior cities.

So a unit that is only relevant on certain terrain. A unit that helps you defend on a terrain that already has a defensive bonus. And a building that goes obsolete, that is not normally needed in most cities, and which gives a promotion, which (again!) is only relevant on certain terrain. Yea!

Plus if you have Guerilla II and want to use it for the speed - well guess what, your opponent will have ax men, which means you best have some ax men, oh whoops, your speed advantage has just been lost. Unless you have two promotions. So yea, more early planning for an early war, so much fun. By the time you have vassalage or theocracy your opponent has a good chance of having, or about to have longbowmen or macemen. Unless your neighbor is way behind in the tech race...which would mean you could take him out anyway, as any civ.

Don't get me wrong, I'm sure there are players out there who figure out certain angles to make the Celts diesel. I just read a post about optimizing Saladin into an economic and cultural powerhouse that I found very insightful. There's (almost?) always an angle in this game, which is why it's so great. I'm just saying, for me, Celts = no fun.

Oh whoops, totally forgot about Spain. Yeah, they really suck too. But I never played as them. I have tried to play as the Celts (it was a random selection).

I should note that I hardly build swordsmen as I don't generally go on the offensive until after rifling. So I build archers, spearmen, and axmen to defend against others. There are exceptions. As Rome I used the prats, but actually only after Shaka declared war on me.

And I did early rushes with Cyrus and Sitting Bull, because, damn, it's just that easy.

troytheface said:

BTS = new BTS civ such as Babylon. Aggr/Org and a reddish pink color. The UU is the
Bowmen which is a good defender so you can build.
Financial and Quechas as a trait and UU are the most overrated on these boards.
Some of the better female leaders are Catherine (Russia= Good) Boudica (Celts=Good)
and Cleopatra (Egypt=Good) the first is like a chick that wants to be like an audrey hepurn , the second is a gal that is more like angolina jolie, and the third is like that real skinny good looking babe in high school. And there is Elizabeth and Isabella, the first a hag with Redcoats and the second the kind of good looking gal that tries to convert you to her religion first chance she gets.

Click to expand...

- That was funny. I initially wanted to simply write "funny" but aparently my message was too short.

champ82 said:

My advice - pick whichever civilization you think has the most visceral fun apeal.

Click to expand...

Thats generally how I play, I pick leaders I can relate to in some manner.
Aztecs: Montezuma, (They really ought to get another leaderHead by now...)
Carthage: Hannibal
Egypt: Ramesses II
Mongolia: Genghis Khan
Vikings: Ragnar

Gilgamesh looks interesting, haven't gotten around to him yet. Been on a Ramesses kick

rosynelson said:

Hi,

I just installed Beyond the Sword, who is the best Leader to play?

Thank you,
Rosy

Click to expand...

Dear ALL!

Whatever the custom game selections are, IMO the following leaders are the best. (UNLESS you enable unrestricted leaders which is -IMO-unfair to play with)

-PACAL II / MAYA
-HUAYNA CAPAC / INCA
-DARIUS / PERSIA
-ELIZABETH / ENGLAND
-FREDERICK / GERMANY
-Willem van Oranje / NETHERLANDS
-HANNIBAL / CARTHAGE


Although some leaders have very powerful traits, the starting tech or UB of their civ are weak/moderate. And there are some powerful civs with good UB&starting techs whose leaders are weak/moderate. IFF you enable unrestricted leaders (LET ME REPEAT THAT THIS IS UNFAIR & UNBALANCED EASY WAY OF POWER), you will remove such weaknesses. Those are;

powerful leaders with weak/moderate civs
roosevelt, napoleon, mehmed II

powerful civs with weak/moderate leaders
holy rome, zulu, byzantine, korea, india


Although some leaders and some civs are powerful for all custom game types, they can be even more powerful with some types as well. Examples:

an organized leader in a small continent would be useless. He should sail to other continents and settle there ASAP.

if you will play in a pangaega or terra map, it may be better to play with darius, pacal II, huayna capac or elizabeth instead of willem van orange&netherlands.

The best leaders to play?
1. Cathy - she has the testosterone I lack.
2. Saladin - My best game ever.
3. Joao - REX like crazy and rule the world!

My point? These people have traits when you face them. Learn and give it back when you play as them.

i like Mansa since vanilla

he is SPI/FIN, and starts with mining/wheel
when 1st worker pop out, it is ready to chop
and pottery is only one short step away, fast cottage with FIN

and SPI is a very flexible trait
switching whip/serfdom will help you building your empire fast and efficient

Ironically, Lincoln is my favorite warmongering leader.

No early UU, but the Charismatic/Philosophical synergy for a SE-driven conquest is fantastic.

I like to do unrestricted leaders and being ramesses i love building wonders and no anarchy is great. The civ I pick is the Indians. Fast Workers are extremely helpful in getting your capitol going early. Once you get,and adopt, serfdom they are even better for upgrading newer cities.

I say Stalin is a friendly noob leader. Easy to get a wonder, and Aggressive (cheap barracks and combat I) is about 2 free promotions. Three promotions when you get to Theocracy. And that's before any great generals.

Negative it that it might teach wonder addiction, and no UU/UB for a long time. But that actually is probably a good thing for learning all the stock new buildings and units.

GoodGame said:

I say Stalin is a friendly noob leader. Easy to get a wonder, and Aggressive (cheap barracks and combat I) is about 2 free promotions. Three promotions when you get to Theocracy. And that's before any great generals.

Negative it that it might teach wonder addiction, and no UU/UB for a long time. But that actually is probably a good thing for learning all the stock new buildings and units.

Click to expand...

seems, new posts there are on this long-silent thread. anyway, let me comment

i have an old post in this thread (post 53), i think a little different now than that. i still believe the mentioned leaders are strong. but i've found out that many more leaders are also strong.

so i believe which leader to play depends on what map, what options and what difficulty you would play

unless you would play on a total isolation (like continents/1 per team), a warring trait (CHA or IMP the best) helps much.

also on difficulties up to monarch, a player doesn't need a certain strategy and economy isn't a big problem. but on level>=emperor, an economic trait (PHI, ORG, FIN) or a UB for economy (rathaus, ikhanda, feiotoria etc.) helps much. UU is also a very big factor. so for decision, important to count all of them and the synergy

besides, some leaders doesn't look very strong in the first glance but they are solid and they help in all conditions.

I'm stunned. No one has mentioned the close-to-overpowered Mehmed of the Ottomans! UB gives plus happiness and health, Janissaries roll over anything before them, and he starts with the two worker techs! Plus his traits allow for early Organized Religon qithout running much debt. and workers to spawn faster. He is definitely 4th, if not 3rd, on the closest to Over-powered tier.