I still don't see why people are saying Boudica's traits are overpowered. Charismatic is okay as a subtle economic trait (having bigger cities helps pay the bills), but I'd still much rather bring a trait like Expansive, Spiritual, or Organized to war instead of two warmongering traits at once. Boudica's good, but I don't think I'd put her in the Darius category. She can do one thing (fight wars) pretty well with lots of promotions, but by that standard Tokugawa is overpowered as well.
I was only mentioning what other people were saying earlier in this thread. Darius I could just as well be considered in his own category. As for Boudica, her traits are very much on par with Genghis Khan and Tokugawa. Purely warmongering traits, and unless you've got a good reason to do Culture/Space Race victories with these leaders, better to pick someone who's better suited for cottage/specialist economies.
Tokugawa is a below average leader overall.
His Samurai are decent, but not nearly enough to put them at being one of the top tier unique units.
The only stand out I could find with him is his Gunpowder units get three free promotions: Combat I, City Garrison I and Drill I. Certainly fun to take down your opponents with Riflemen, and Tokugawa is good with them (at least when you're playing as him). Other than that, he's not that great of a leader.
When you're not playing for Conquest/Domination, it's like playing a leader without traits. On the higher difficulties combined with an economy disadvantage, you're more than likely to struggle with Toku. I don't see at all how he's overpowered in anything.
Hunting helps a lot if you play with huts. As an added bonus you can make ivory camps in the jungle too.
Hunting is certainly useful in that regard. Ivory camps are better than what some people take them for.
I agree that Boudica is far from overpowered. CHAR is powerful, but it's more for powering another trait, imho. At least, that's my theory for why I can't do well with her
Even Toku is better, at least under my playstyle.
Was it something I said in my previous post that triggered this conversation about Boudica?
CHM is decent, but it can viewed in both ways. Good for when you need a little more happiness (+1 happiness by itself combined with the +1 happiness from Monuments gives you +2 happiness whereas leaders without CHM won't get any extra happiness) and decent for getting promotions sooner (-25% XP needed for promotions)
AGG is debatable, but I would definitely agree that it's not in the likes of CRE, ORG, FIN, IND and PHI.
As long as your lucky with Toku and know how to use him right, you can do pretty well. When I do the early game with him, I tend to struggle more than I succeed with leaders that have economic traits.
You are understating how bad her trait combo. I will come out and say what no one else will. Her trait combo sucks donkey. That plus the fact that her UU and UB are garbage makes me wonder why Firaxis hates the Scotts and the Irish so much.
AGG/PRO is just as terrible. AGG/IMP doesn't hold a lot of merit either.
I tend to find that a lot of people would rather pick a leader who isn't Aggressive or Protective, rather than to pick a leader who is quite limited in his/her economy. Boudica is certainly limited in that particular area.
Again, if it's something I said about AGG/CHM that triggered this conversation, feel free to mention what I said wrong.
Her UU is okay for hills defense, but I would prefer getting Archery units to defend my cities. As for her UB, it's nothing special. Just a revamped edition of 'Walls' that provide Guerilla I. Who do you know today that builds a lot of walls in their games?
Who said that Firaxis hated the Scotts and Irish?
Shoot, even among the Celts, I'd rather play Brennus any day. Being able to switch into builder/economic civics and then back into war civics with impunity is a far bigger bonus to the player than cheap Barracks and Combat 1 promotions.
I think what's being taken for granted here is the fact that Aggressive might not even be the best warmonger trait. Honestly, the issue for me is rarely having units with a ton of promotions, but rather getting the the production to build a lot of units. I'd much rather have Expansive when going to war--cheaper Granaries to whip plus cheaper Workers to chop equals a bigger army quicker, which in my experience seems to be more of a factor without any number-crunching on my part. That's not to say Aggressive and Charismatic aren't useful, but that extra production capacity in a critical area makes Expansive better for war in my book. Alongside the Ikhanda, it's what makes Shaka such a monster.
That's why Spiritual is good for those kinds of situations. You can switch back to Slavery and the like without going into Anarchy, and the cheap temples really help in the long run.
You can probably look at Napoleon and Julius Caesar to be better warmongers than leaders like Tokugawa and Genghis Khan. Napoleon and Caesar both have Organized, which helps in managing a bigger empire, and they certainly got the potential to go ecstatic in the early game. Especially for Caesar, whose Praetorians often mow down opposing cities, even with highly upgraded Archers. It's like getting a Maceman early, but without the need to research Civil Service. Praetorians can definitely tip the game over in your favor.
Napoleon's Charismatic trait helps to boost a little more happiness, and unhappiness gained from prolonged wars certainly isn't a good thing. With both Caesar and Napoleon having Organized, you can definitely keep a bigger empire going without going too far into a deficit.
Playing as Tokugawa just doesn't give off the same kinds of successes you get with Caesar and Napoleon nearly as frequently. Aggressive isn't as good as it sounds to be.
Expansive is better than Aggressive. Aggressive by itself doesn't hold much merit.
I tend to do better with Shaka only because his UB provides a -20% maintenance reduction. It's available right from turn one, and that strong early game often seen with Shaka makes that UB one of the best in the game.
As a matter of fact, the highest score I got as of now was with Shaka, because I was whipping Ikhandas like crazy to get an early Conquest victory.
SPI is my top warmonger trait, probably followed by ORG (an economic edge is very welcome, warmonger civics are more expensive than average, in full effect in underdeveloped conquests).
Gotta hate anarchy, right?
Don't need to use any Golden Age to switch civics. I often switch as many as four-five civics at once with Spiritual, and I don't get any anarchy from doing so. Having to deal with two consecutive turns of anarchy is just annoying.
There's a good reason why it's harder to play with Tokugawa as opposed to someone like Julius Caesar and Mansa Musa.
