Thoughts on the Strongest Leader in Warlords

[Mr. Civtastic]

Genghis Khan seems strong, but all that warring wont help much when you cant afford to keep cities, your tech is behind because you have to research hbr asap before the ai gets pikemen (which can be alarmingly quick on Monarch), you probably wont get any of the early wonders outside of Stonehenge, and plenty of unhappiness because you wont get a religion (until someone spreads it to you). So youll have to be warring constantly for money, which means war weariness. And you can forget about fighting Alexander and Shaka early on...theyll make your Ger feel useless.

I think it can work Prince and below, but on Monarch and up when the ai is always rocketing on techs, its a challenge.

 

[Domaniac]

I just finished my first Warlords game as Stalin - and normally my strategy leans on doing an early landgrab, build up my culture and then much later on start thinking about conquering people. But with Stalin I found it incredibly easy to just conduct warfare throughout the entire game. I think there were only a few turns when I wasn't at war with someone, and indeed I was often at war with multiple civs - a rarity for me. The best of it was that I was always winning!

So I definitely concurr that Stalin is a real military powerhouse.
Now to play the others - I'm itching to try out the Ottomans actually...

 

[Lance of Llanwy]

Funny, since it was Stalin who said "Quantity is its own quality" and then went on to prove it by winning WWII.

I just got warlords and I'm pretty impressed with Cyrus' super warmonger traits, although I'm still afraid to attack Korea.

DrMayhem: Having the super early granary if you couple if with slavery could possibly make for a warmonging nightmare (for the other players or computer). As a result of this new thought, I might try the new washington for the first time, or use Shaka for the second time, and see if I can improve upon what I did with him the first time.

Try that with Charisma to keep the cities happier and an early city taking UU like the Immortals.

I played a game as him...and got dogged with a crappy start. Still, I managed to stamp out Mehmed with my tundra empire's meager production. He really is impressive. I can't wait to play him again and get a better start!

I'm sure it's been mentioned, but Tokugawa is pretty impressive, though I miss Organized. UB comes a little late, but those gunpowder units are sweet. Your entire army is juiced from the beginning. Who needs axemen for fogbusters when your archers are that good right away? Save the axes for rushing! Or just wait for Samurai. They may not sound impressive, but don't forget the unit they improve upon!

And yeah...fighting Protective leaders sucks. I thought I was going to bean Saladin in an early war....ouch. That's all I can say. You're prolly better off waiting for cats when fighting a Protective leader, but an early axerush is contingent in part on facing very few promoted archers behind uniformly poor defenses....

 

[sniprpenguin]

In reference to the post on how spiritual has 9 out of 10 combos but creative and philosophical both having 5 each, not too many famous leaders were big on art or philosophy. Religion has played a dominant part in history, which is why there are more spiritual leaders than creative. Personally, I think Mao Tse-tung (TRUE spelling) should have stayed philosophical. It is kinda obvious that Firaxis is weighing historical accuracy more than the player's opinion in some cases.

Also, in a hotseat MP game with 18 players, as Hannibal, only 3 cities but score, tech, and power leader. Financial + Charismatic - Not using Numidian Cavalry = Better than everyone else.

 

[catchsomezzz]

Re: Tokugawa

In my current Marathon game (huge map, 18 civs) as the Japanese -- I've just reached the modern era and have finished researching Industrialism.

In the game, I have two primary military unit producing cities - (1) the city of Southern Cross which has the West Point + Heroic Epic and (2) the city of Knightley which has Iron Works + (soon to be Red Cross - but I've not yet researched Medicine).

Anyway, Southern Cross has 7 Great Generals added to it as Military Instructors... and combined with the appropriate +XP buildings and civics, I'm producing level 5 (27 XP) Japanese Marines every two turns (on Marathon speed, no less).

What's the point? Well, the promotions for each Marine fresh out of the meat grinder are:

(1) Japanese gunpowder units already get the free Combat I, City Garrison I, and Drill I promotions.
(2) Marines also get the free Amphibious promotion.
(3) With the 5 promotions, I'm giving them Combat II-V, and the March promotions...

So, comparatively to the Navy SEAL, given the same promotions, the Japanese Marines are superior. The irony of all this is... I'm building up my Marines to go to war with Roosevelt, who is the current big Kahuna on the other continent.

 

[Duncan_Idaho]

And you can forget about fighting Alexander and Shaka early on...theyll make your Ger feel useless.

I think it can work Prince and below, but on Monarch and up when the ai is always rocketing on techs, its a challenge.

Hmm, a player playing Alexander would be a problem. The AI Alexander never stacks Phalanxes though, much less upgraded ones.
The Impis are gonna get eaten alive by the Mongol upgraded horses True, a player could create problems using Impis.

But don't underestimate Genghis The imperialistic settlers would be a good advantage in MP games. Then you can pillage with the Keshiks.

As of religion, you can always get Confucianism until Emperor (not sure how it works above). Here's how you do it:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=182794

After you eat the first neighbour, you can stop the war and you'll be ahead in technology due to your increased output. Then you can choose a victory (except cultural I think).

 

[slowcar]

My latest attempt to an early rush with Cyrus was simply too successfull.
I played a small pangäa. but got an own subcontinent connected only via a small land slide to the japanese, the cathargeans, the chinese and the americans.
after having quite some barbarian problems (being alone on quite some area) i built two cities, grabbing horses and copper.

conquering the japanese was like a walk in the park, despite their traits.
i continued with the cathargeans, having a mass stack including 2 generals, managing to pillage their iron and bronze first and defeating the occasional spear with losses.

just in the middle of my rampage i got caught by the maintenance. had 3 japanese cities and 1 cathargean (their capital) on top of my own 3, was a bit away from CoL and just had -10g at 0% science.
i still think you can make an awesome rush with cyrus, but one has to pay great attention to the maintenance.
a big empire without CoL is so expensive that you can't keep on with research (which is hard enough on emperor anyhow).

my personal favorites are:
cyrus, alexander (start with great wall, build pyramids with engineer) and elisabeth.
having a fincancial leader and managing to build a wonder gets your GP-machine running which never stops
and producing engineers makes wonder-building a never-known luxury on emperor!

 

[Pete2006]

So far I've won emporer games with Brennus, Wang Kon and Aug Caesar and Hannibal. So far I think Carthage is the best new civ by far.

I've never built his UU as it looks rather worthless. The UB is amazing. I've been able to get size 10 cities very very early and every city with a cothon is pulling in three 5-6 commerce trade routes. Building the Great Lighthouse would equal 10 free commerce per cothon city. Unbeatable!

The extra happiness is a godsend in the early game. 2 extra citizens = ~5 extra commerce per city. I usually build 6 cities before my first war so that is 30 extra commerce. Very strong. It's like playing one difficulty level lower.

So there's no difficulty in keeping the economy strong. Then, the quick promotions mean easier wars. It isn't as strong as aggressive but agressive doesn't provide free happiness. Early warring and easy promotions mean you don't have to waste a GG on unit promotions. You can settle him as an instructor and build the HE and/or WP based on natural unit promotions.

 

[Register666666]

woah Julius Caesar is pretty neat combo if you know how to use it properly. When it comes to making a fast expanding but powerful empire, Julius is without a doubt the best choice.

 

[Duncan_Idaho]

I've never built his UU as it looks rather worthless. The UB is amazing.

The UU is as amazing as the UB Just think what could stop horse archers? - spearmen!
And these guys have +50% against melee units! They literary eat spearmen. You will have no mach until the enemy gets Engineering - and this is pretty late in the game.
Also the -10% city attack isn't that bad. Even against longbowmen since what actually kills the longbowmen are the catapults.

Hannibal is for sure one of the most powerful leaders.

Btw I like Brennus too, his traits make a cool combination too. Also the Celts are my favourite civ and enjoy playing them in any game (Civ III, Age of Empires) but their UU and UB are IMO one of the most useless in the game.
I wish we had those Gallic warriors from Civ III back

 

[Pete2006]

The UU is as amazing as the UB Just think what could stop horse archers? - spearmen!
And these guys have +50% against melee units! They literary eat spearmen. You will have no mach until the enemy gets Engineering - and this is pretty late in the game.
Also the -10% city attack isn't that bad. Even against longbowmen since what actually kills the longbowmen are the catapults.

Hannibal is for sure one of the most powerful leaders.

Btw I like Brennus too, his traits make a cool combination too. Also the Celts are my favourite civ and enjoy playing them in any game (Civ III, Age of Empires) but their UU and UB are IMO one of the most useless in the game.
I wish we had those Gallic warriors from Civ III back

Someone always seems to make the agument that Numidian cavs are a good UU when I post that they suck.

They suck.

HA comes much later in the tree than copper or iron. HA is expensive to research and the unit is expensive to build and cannot take cities.

Bronze and IW costs together cost less to research than HA and the techs are vital to research early.

HA = 250 beakers while Monarchy is 300 beakers and CoL is 350. I'd rather be reseaching some economic techs to support my economy than another miltary tech if I already have copper and/or iron. These two techs can usually be traded as well. It's usually difficult to trade HA since the AI researches it quickly.

An axe is 35 hammers and gets city raider promotions. A spear is 35 hammers and can get city raider promotions. A sword is 40 hammers and can get city raider promotions. A Ncav is 50 hammers and is equivalent to a city raider spear when taking cities vs archers.

A stack of swords to take a city with one or two axes and spears for defense will net many more cities than a stack of Ncavs and are much cheaper to build.

It makes sense to me that the Carthage UU is so weak because the traits and the UB is so strong.

On another note, I feel like every civ has access to the best unit - the Trebuchet. There is no defensive counter and thus is the best city raider in the game until mid gunpowder era. It only requires a couple maces and knights to tag along for protection. If you spend the MIddle Ages in war, which I almost always do, then you should have a lot of CR3 trebuchets and they can even take cities defended by Grenadiers and Rifles. Sometimes around 30-40% chance to win + retreat and collateral damage. Not bad!

 

[Paulk]

@Pete2006 do you play Single Player or Multiplayer? Cause in Single Player you're a little more right considering your play the AI (who isn't very smart). But in multiplayer these NC will rape your stack of CRII Axeman before they even get to the city walls, even if you have one or two spearman your stack will get destroyed. And you wont even be able to defend your copper/iron mines.

 

[Lance of Llanwy]

@Pete2006 do you play Single Player or Multiplayer? Cause in Single Player you're a little more right considering your play the AI (who isn't very smart). But in multiplayer these NC will rape your stack of CRII Axeman before they even get to the city walls, even if you have one or two spearman your stack will get destroyed. And you wont even be able to defend your copper/iron mines.

I agree, especially since HAs now have a very good withdrawal chance....and Numidians get Flanking 1 free! Flanking 2 Numidians have a very high chance for withdrawal, and thus I often send them in after the cats, because the chances of them actually dying are very slim. They're extremely effective pillagers(more so than chariots) because they really aren't very weak to spearmen. If you're fighting Greece, it's another story, but that goes for all the other early horse-based UUs. HAs are quite a bit better than they were in vanilla thanks to stables and a higher base withdrawal chance, and Numidians are a notable improvement.

 

[raymondieee]

Six pages is just too much to read so I will throw this out in hopes it isn't a repeat: It has to depend largely on the game settings. I have tried leaders and strats you guys mentioned, but I am a big fan of the largest maps and most civs possible. Sometimes I get my @ss handed to me and I have started to notice sometimes when you mention certain leaders it is with smaller, pangea maps (for instance.) Maybe it is alos victory you are trying for, as it seems most here are agressive.

So, by far my best agressive game was with Ragnar, having 5 vassals of the 14 civs in the game, on Monarch, and when I think of having a game with a lot of war, I choose him. If I decide I want a more peaceful game, I will play on Prince and go with Elizabeth or Victoria, but I am trying to get better at getting away from the financial trait.

 

[Pinstar]

What are people's thoughts on the new Protective trait? I haven't heard much about it from a strategy point of view? Is it really a 2nd tier trait?

 

[catchsomezzz]

In my opinion, the Protective trait is somewhere between 1st and 2nd tier. The two free promotions are great for defense (no need to elaborate here), as well as offense.

Why offense? Because you should always employ a good mix of units on the attack. My attack stacks usually consists of:

(1) The shock troops with Combat or CR promotions are the grunts that, along with siege units, lead the assault. The downside is that these tend to die in huge numbers.

(2) The clean-up troops with the Drill line of promotions to take out the remnant defenders who are already hurt pretty badly. There are only 1-3 of these units in each stack, but they tend to survive as they also are among the last to defend, so they get a lot of promotions (which is also useful for eligibility to construct the Heroic Epic & West Point).

I've got clean-up units that have gained over 100 XP (level 10 -- or level 11-12 if you're playing Churchill).

(3) Garrison troops to hold captured cities.

(4) A few specialty troops like anti-siege, anti-calvary, etc.

Overall, both freebie protective traits are used in my offensive stacks, and particularly units with Drill I-IV promotions are always my most highly decorated units.

 

[a4phantom]

What are people's thoughts on the new Protective trait? I haven't heard much about it from a strategy point of view? Is it really a 2nd tier trait?

Do a small pangea world and make sure the Koreans are one of your rivals. Try attacking early on and see how how much harder it is, even for early game rushers like the Persians. Free Garrison and Drill 1 for defensive units throughout the game, and for offensive units during the age of infantry? I might play the Japanese next, because I just fought them and their extremely powerful gunpowder armies (Garrison 1, Drill 1, Combat 1 all free)

 

[Duncan_Idaho]

The protective trait indeed has its advantages. However it doesn't come with any economical bonuses and I think this makes it a little weak.
Otherwise it's nice to spam archers/longbowmen all over your land and laugh at the enemy's pathetic attempts at pillaging
Churchil's redcoats are a nightmare too.

Talking about the Japanese, what do you think about the Samurai? I like playing Japan because I'm a fan of the Japanese culture but I never managed to use the Samurai effectively - my wars usually stop before I reach machinery + civil service. Any impressions about them?

 

[a4phantom]

The protective trait indeed has its advantages. However it doesn't come with any economical bonuses and I think this makes it a little weak.
Otherwise it's nice to spam archers/longbowmen all over your land and laugh at the enemy's pathetic attempts at pillaging
Churchil's redcoats are a nightmare too.

That's why the Koreans are so tough, aren't they financial?

Talking about the Japanese, what do you think about the Samurai? I like playing Japan because I'm a fan of the Japanese culture but I never managed to use the Samurai effectively - my wars usually stop before I reach machinery + civil service. Any impressions about them?

I liked them a lot in Vanilla. Their bonuses aren't great, but since they replaced the main strike unit of the midieval era they were a big advantage, and just cool. Now trebuchets have made maces less important, and it looks like its the gunpowder units that are really beefed up for Japan (Aggressive and Protective).

 

[morahed18]

The protective trait indeed has its advantages. However it doesn't come with any economical bonuses and I think this makes it a little weak.

Actually... I started drooling over the economic advantage of going for cultural victory with a Protective leader... you can run Pacifism no problem- fewer/stronger troops in your garrison. Too bad there isn't a Protective/Philosophical civ (intentionally avoided?)