5 Most Fun & Addictive Leaders - Summer Edition

[Thalassicus]

Select ~5 or so choices​

Time for another Favorite Leaders poll! It's been a few months since the last one and I'd like to get your opinion about the current state of things.

Which 4-6 leaders do you find the most fun and addictive to play in the Vanilla Enhanced Mod?

It is not necessarily about buffs/nerfs or overpowered/underpowered. Fun and favorites are a very subjective thing. If a leader simply had +50% production and nothing else, that'd be powerful, but probably not as fun as some cool bonus that changes gameplay in a more interesting way. I like characteristics that let us play differently instead of just better.

 

[Zaldron]

I just wanted to say I'm finding the sight range improvement on Chinese great generals is awesome.

 

[Catastrophe90]

Elizabeth: Longbows, Longbows and Longbows. You could nerf the everloving daylights out of her UB and UA and I'd still play her for the Longbows. Also, her new naval exp bonuses are really nice.

Mongolia: Khans are really amazing, especially when your units start getting March. And they last all game. The extra movement is really useful too.

Arabia: You have gold coming out of every orifice. What's not to like?

Isabella: The rush of excitement everytime you see a Natural Wonder followed by the mad rush to crank out a Settler and grabbing that spot, regardless of the psychopath AI's fury, is my favorite experience in Civilization V.

China: A few CKNs can slaughter whole armies, especially if you rushed to them. Also, money printers. I mean, Paper Makers. Yeah.

 

[Kakafika]

Darius - Persia 0 0%

Now I feel bad... I didn't vote him because I've only had so much time to try the new other leaders lately =P

 

[Thalassicus]

It's interesting to see Rome rated much higher than in the past. Could it be because % modifiers are harder to come by now? A 25% boost wasn't a big deal at Civ 5's release, but now it's one of the highest in the game. I hope the double road build speed of Legions is also fun.

 

[mitsho]

Maybe. It also might be interesting to reverse the order of the civs for the Fall Poll I also would like to emphasize that Darius actually is interesting to play...

 

[Txurce]

Maybe. It also might be interesting to reverse the order of the civs for the Fall Poll I also would like to emphasize that Darius actually is interesting to play...

Darius just missed my favorites list.

I mentioned once before that if the main underlying purpose of this poll is to determine which civs need buffing, then it would probably be helpful to have a poll on the 5 civs you never play with.

 

[Thalassicus]

The reason I do it this way is we have the most experience with our favorite leaders.

It also helps me identify successful ideas like Arabia's trait. I use it to set my goals (which are a somewhat fuzzy thing) in all aspects of the mod, even city development or combat.

 

[Babri]

Aztecs are getting few votes. I would suggest to boost Jaguars strength to 7 to make them more attractive.

 

[Txurce]

Aztecs are getting few votes. I would suggest to boost Jaguars strength to 7 to make them more attractive.

The Aztecs also just missed my top 5!

 

[Thalassicus]

In this particular case I'd rather buff the Aztec trait. Montezuma was rated very high in past polls, and I suspect the reason he dropped is everyone can now get culture from kills (barbarians at least). This is why I didn't add a culture from barbarians effect in March when the opportunity presented itself... it made Monte less exciting in comparison.

Jaguars already have:

• Forest/jungle movement
• Jungle combat
• Heal after attack

These carry over to swords, longswords, etc. I don't think buffing an already powerful unit even more would help as much as buffing the more unique part of the Aztecs: the trait.

 

[Babri]

In this particular case I'd rather buff the Aztec trait. Montezuma was rated very high in past polls, and I suspect the reason he dropped is everyone can now get culture from kills (barbarians at least). This is why I didn't add a culture from barbarians effect in March when the opportunity presented itself... it made Monte less exciting in comparison.

Jaguars already have:

• Forest/jungle movement
• Jungle combat
• Heal after attack

These carry over to swords, longswords, etc. I don't think buffing an already powerful unit even more would help as much as buffing the more unique part of the Aztecs: the trait.

Time to boost their UA.

 

[Txurce]

In this particular case I'd rather buff the Aztec trait. Montezuma was rated very high in past polls, and I suspect the reason he dropped is everyone can now get culture from kills (barbarians at least). This is why I didn't add a culture from barbarians effect in March when the opportunity presented itself... it made Monte less exciting in comparison.

I don't think buffing an already powerful unit even more would help as much as buffing the more unique part of the Aztecs: the trait.

The Aztecs may also have dropped because they're not new anymore. But do you really think that one Honor policy has resulted in a major change for the worse in the Aztecs' enjoyment factor? It hasn't for me, at least.

Buffing their trait, when they are already considered strong and fun on the vanilla boards because of the Honor policy, may instead contribute to what I call the Arms Race: a never-ending spiral where you keep buffing all of the civs.

 

[Thalassicus]

That's why I focus on making leaders more exciting, not necessarily more powerful. If the strength of leaders remains the same, but we have an arms race in how fun they are, that's a competition I'm happy to have.

Also, I usually don't focus on leaders who are middle of the pack like Monte's current position. I put most of my time and energy into the lowest-rated leaders. In particular I'm thrilled to finally see Elizabeth and Suleiman in the upper levels. I've been trying to improve them for over half a year without success, and it seems I've finally hit on good solutions (indirect fire longbows, and specialist yields).

Iroquois have always been a problem though. I think the recent vanilla change to let them spam Mohawks sorta made sense realistically, but isn't very exciting. Our classical army is just 1 unit type and we can't upgrade them all. I think I might return to the previous Hiawatha effect of faster movement in forest/jungle for all melee & archers. It fits well with his existing trait effect.

 

[GoodRevrnd]

Simple Monte Idea: Culture on Kill = Base + n, where n = number of units already killed on same turn. You can also add a multiplier to n (ie +1.5n, +2n, etc.) for tweaking purposes. This is a slight buff and rewards you for planning ahead with positioning to make overwhelming pushes in a single turn. But it also isn't *THAT* interesting and good players do this anyway.

But I don't care, I don't play Monte. Was just a though I had reading this thread.

 

[Beelzibub]

Darius is certainly fine as he is, despite only getting the 3 votes. I like the versatility as he suits various playstyles. Immortals can obviously be used in early conquest but also help massively fending off early invasions if playing peacefully. The +1 move in extra long golden ages is awesome for conquest games but equally the longer GAs are easier to get on small/tall builder games with massive happiness. All in all a very fun leader to play.

 

[Sneaks]

Darius probably has 3 votes because he is very good, but not very interesting in my opinion. I don't play any differently than a standard play style using him, unlike most of the leaders I personally find more enjoyable.

 

[Thalassicus]

That's basically what I think... he's good, but not as addictive as other leaders, which is what this thread is about.

I think it's because of what I brought up in the first post... a passive +X% bonus might be good (like better healing, longer golden ages, more happiness), but not particularly exciting. None of his characteristics really require active, frequent, interesting decisions.

Compare the extra gold on the Satrap's Court to the gold Arabia gets. Arabia's bonus requires actively seeking out resources and trading partners throughout the whole game. In contrast, we just build a Satrap and forget about it for the rest of the game. There's not really as much strategy involved.

 

[Txurce]

That's basically what I think... he's good, but not as addictive as other leaders, which is what this thread is about.

I think it's because of what I brought up in the first post... a passive +X% bonus might be good (like better healing, longer golden ages, more happiness), but not particularly exciting. None of his characteristics really require active, frequent, interesting decisions.

Compare the extra gold on the Satrap's Court to the gold Arabia gets. Arabia's bonus requires actively seeking out resources and trading partners throughout the whole game. In contrast, we just build a Satrap and forget about it for the rest of the game. There's not really as much strategy involved.

Then why is India so popular?

I rank Persia in the second tier (like India). They may have relatively passive traits, but long GA's are a blast - especially when lengthened by Chichen Itza and GP's.

 

[Sneaks]

I actually play a different game as India. I tend to "go big or go home" as fast as possible, enjoying supercities I usually don't attempt with other civs due to happiness constraints.