5 Most Fun & Addictive Leaders

Pick your ~5 favorite leaders!

  • Washington - America

    Votes: 15 26.3%
  • Harun al-Rashid - Arabia

    Votes: 17 29.8%
  • Montezuma - Aztecs

    Votes: 14 24.6%
  • Nebuchadnezzar - Babylon

    Votes: 12 21.1%
  • Wu Zedian - China

    Votes: 6 10.5%
  • Harald Bluetooth - Denmark

    Votes: 4 7.0%
  • Ramesses II - Egypt

    Votes: 12 21.1%
  • Elizabeth - England

    Votes: 8 14.0%
  • Napoleon - France

    Votes: 18 31.6%
  • Bismark - Germany

    Votes: 10 17.5%
  • Alexander - Greece

    Votes: 7 12.3%
  • Pachacuti - Incas

    Votes: 9 15.8%
  • Gandhi - India

    Votes: 15 26.3%
  • Hiawatha - Iroquois

    Votes: 9 15.8%
  • Oda Nobunaga - Japan

    Votes: 10 17.5%
  • Genghis Khan - Mongolia

    Votes: 7 12.3%
  • Suleiman - Ottomans

    Votes: 11 19.3%
  • Darius - Persia

    Votes: 11 19.3%
  • Kamehameha - Polynesia

    Votes: 5 8.8%
  • Augustus Caesar - Rome

    Votes: 17 29.8%
  • Catherine - Russia

    Votes: 9 15.8%
  • Ramkhamhaeng - Siam

    Votes: 5 8.8%
  • Askia - Songhai

    Votes: 10 17.5%
  • Isabella - Spain

    Votes: 8 14.0%

  • Total voters
    57

Thalassicus

Bytes and Nibblers
Joined
Nov 9, 2005
Messages
11,057
Location
Texas
Starting a new poll to see how leaders are stacked up right now in TBC! :goodjob:

Which 4-6 leaders do you find the most fun and addictive to play in "balance-combined" Civilization? Select multiple choices.

It is not 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.
 
Catherine, double strategic resources ftw.

Also Washington, extra visibility range . . . ftw
 
My votes reflect my current interests, and aren't necessarily my absolute favorites. It might be interesting (and too much trouble) to poll for the ones that you never choose - going directly at the issue, rather than inferentially.
 
My votes reflect my current interests, and aren't necessarily my absolute favorites. It might be interesting (and too much trouble) to poll for the ones that you never choose - going directly at the issue, rather than inferentially.

This. I generally play one game a week and usually choose random or a civ which has been recently changed in the betas, so my voting wouldn't be that different than the previous poll. I could easily name the five or so civs that I have never played more than a couple dozen turns (a few times) with because of dislike!
 
Based on the current results, it's interesting that the revised England is doing very poorly, even though I find it to be a consistently successful AI civ.

Also interesting is how much the Aztecs are enjoyed, despite their poor AI performance and seemingly general acknowledgement that they are not a top-tier civ.

The conclusion I would draw at this stage, based on my own evaluation of the civs as well as their popularity, is that none are viewed as too weak - if changes are called for, it would be to raise the "fun" factor.
 
I play more games with England than all the other civs combined, but it is for an odd reason and not for their bonuses or the longbowmen. I play England for the city names! They are cities I have heard of and I like it when my empire has cities that I am familiar with. (I know this is stupid, but it's the truth).

I don't play America much, because although the city names are familiar to me, it bothers me when the geography of my kingdom does not match real life; i.e. Seattle being next to Atlanta. Though I am familiar with all the British city names, I really don't know much about their locations in relation to one another, so it doesn't bother me where the cities are.

As I said, I know it is stupid, but it is true nonetheless!

As for the long bowmen I like them, but they seem a lot better in theory than they usually turn out to be in fact. Though they can fire three hexes, they can only see for two, so it is uncommon to actually be able to shoot for three hexes. The one real benefit they did have was as siege weapons. There was usually two or three hexes where a longbowman was able to fire at a city without suffering return fire. But since the siege promotion has been removed from them, this no longer really matters. In most terrain they are no better than the crossbowman, but there are always a few key spots on the map where a couple of long bowmen can provide a real benefit, especially in defense (prepared positions). And especially because the AI rarely will charge at archers and prefers to try to heal in place....

P.S. Did the indirect fire promotion also get cut from them? I found that promotion to be extremely potent and it probably should be cut, if it wasn't already. Besides the fact that archers aren't known much for their indirect fire capabilities....

Edit: Extra P.S. And I think they might be stronger as an AI opponent than as a player's civ, because the AI will not miss an opportunity to use the 3 hex shot, and always seems to be in just the right spot to hit my armies hard with them (though sometimes I suspect they don't follow the same LOS rules as I have to), where as a player, it is very difficult to know on a map what the LOS is and there are probably a lot of good places you could shoot from, but you just don't really know until you actually try to shoot (and find out you can't)....
 
Longbowmen are extremely powerful! Use mounted units with the extra sight promotion as lookouts, and then back them out of harms way when you are done raining down hell!
 
Longbowmen are extremely powerful! Use mounted units with the extra sight promotion as lookouts, and then back them out of harms way when you are done raining down hell!

It depends on the map you play. I like to play with the Perfect World map, which is pretty hilly and the opportunities for anyone to see three hexes are limited (But not rare; you just have to search the hexes out which can be a chore without a tool to show LOS).

But I'm not saying that Long Bowmen stink....
 
It's interesting to see some of the leaders most changed in TBC are the most popular. I'm glad it worked out! I used the poll results to work on a few leaders:

  • China - Great Generals have +2 sight range, and returned them to a 30%:c5strength: bonus (from 20%).
  • Greece - Militaristic citystates give units with +15%:c5strength: Morale, I added the Phalanx promotion, and increased the movement speed of Companion Cavalry.
  • Siam - The citystate bonus also applies to militaristic citystates, so any form of alliance has value.

There don't seem to be any woefully unpopular stragglers (like Germany and Mongolia in the last poll), so I feel leader balance is in a good state. :)
 
What I found to be fun in my first two games:
Elizabeth - The new Elizabeth is awesome, and the fun factor increases as the amount and availability of water decreases. The overall buff to boat promotion lines helps Elizabeth in a big way.
Bismark - Conquering with Poachers is priceless. In my current game I have conquered Rome and London already, and have not yet built a single military unit. I like the dynamics of the conqueror mentality, actively looking for trouble more than anyone else.
More in a few more days, as I play with more leaders. I think I'll try Kamehameha next, just for the name.
 
Starting a new poll to see how leaders are stacked up right now in TBC! :goodjob:

Which 4-6 leaders do you find the most fun and addictive to play in "balance-combined" Civilization? Select multiple choices.

It is not 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.

Would love to see this as a new poll given the many changes since May of last year!!
 
Back
Top Bottom