A tiered ranking of leader novelty

[crdvis16]

You haven't toyed too much with them, ain't you?

Playing tall and diplomacy at the same time is by no means easy. Know what happens when you ally too many city states? Your neighbours get angry. And you have way too little an army. Usually a diplomatic civ goes thick (because it needs to, otherwise it cannot produce enough diplomatic units and get near those city states), so it has a decent army; this is not the case for Austria.
Also, I don't see that going Statecraft is the best option for Austria. Letting your alliances fall after you've marriaged, and going Artistry, boosts GP generation while holding a strong grab in the world congress. Even Fealty is not that good, for the bonus is in the capital alone, and you don't really need too much food outside of Wien. If you go StateCraft, then you may have absolute diplomatic control, but it leads to wars with your very small army, but hey, you're the hummy, so maybe you can beat it.

I usually find defending a tall empire to be pretty easy. As long as you plant your few cities in defensible locations being outnumbered doesn't matter much- you can typically hold off endless hordes from a defensible location as long as your army is up to date tech-wise. It's usually easy to have the gold to keep a small army up to date and being near the top in techs is often fairly easy when tall too. I dunno- I guess I just don't see it as a drastic game-play change.

Rome's minigame is different enough. You don't want to build wonders in Rome. You build infrastructure and units. So wonders are in secondary/captured cities. It's one of the civs that can make a puppet empire work. Also, the excess of great generals let you abuse citadels. Normally you place citadels in very well selected places. Here you spam them. Is it novel? Not too much, but enough.

I often find that by investing in buildings in my capital I can build virtually all infrastructure, national wonders, and necessary world wonders with relative ease. I typically spread unit production out or relegate it to a non-capital. I like that the production bonuses and infrastructure survival of conquered puppets for Rome allows you to more rapidly conquer cities and have them start being a net gain rather than net loss (especially in terms of happiness) but it doesn't feel terribly different. It just lets Rome conquer harder, which is nice but not very novel imo.

China... yes you are missing something. You get +1 culture +1 food in ALL cities, when getting new cities (or create great works, I haven't played with that added). I'll put you this way: Settle 6 cities in Ancient Era and your capital will have +6f+6c, your second city will have +5f+5c, your third one +4f+4c, sfsf. So with 6 cities you have like +21f+21c in your empire in Ancient!. This will go down when you pass to next era, but while you get there, it's massive. Does this change the way you play it? Definitely. Because if you prefer to expand in Classical, then you rush to Iron Working, build a massive army and expand. It also changes the way you rush/delay next eras.

I guess I just assume it would still be best to just settle early as much as possible, though, but to never settle when you're about to change eras as your bonus would then be chopped in half too quickly? I think my strategy would probably be to just settle like crazy right from the get-go. That's when the best city sites are still available, that's when the +food/culture is going to be the most impactful (the largest proportion of your normal food/culture generation). I would then probably research every single ancient tech before moving to classical so as to keep my bonuses for as long as possible.

Delaying until the start of classical to settle cities seems like it would just be asking for those city sites to get taken by others that aren't waiting around. Though I could see the mini-game of weighing the benefits of reaching into a new era for a tech vs. staying in a given era to milk the food/culture bonuses could be interesting. I did move China up to tier2 on your guys' recommendation- I should probably play another game as them soon to feel the uniqueness for myself.

Sweden, it may not change your play style if you are a warmonger yourself, but for me it was like "fight always or lose". His uniques are nothing without a fight.

Certainly agree, though I guess my issue is that he doesn't really go about war in a unique way. He doesn't have some interesting relationship with CSs and how strong his army is like Greece, or the interesting Zulu mechanic of intimidating CSs, or a relationship between war and Art/Writing/Music like Japan/France. So war is easier for him because he has kick-ass units but war is not necessarily very different as him.[/QUOTE]

Some civs are unique in the way they play, like China or Venice. Some civs are unique because they can do things that others can't, like the damn fast early expansion of Carthage. Some civs are good for learning a mechanic/ play style, so you play as always, but with a focus on that specific mechanic. With India you learn a lot about religious pressure. With Netherlands you learn about deals. Austria makes you pay attention to CS quests. Sweden is so war focused that you need to master warmongering if you want to play with it. Some civs are just generically strong and can be played the way you like (Poland, Ethiopia).

Totally agree here. I think my own preference is for civs that make me play much differently than normal (so I tend to not bother with Poland/Ethiopia) but totally could see others loving those civs for their flexibility.

 

[Stalker0]

I agree on the note of flexibility vs truly play different.

China for example is not really a play different to me. Sure I focus on certain things more, but these are things I still do normally.

Now someone like France that is “tourism by authority” to me is a play different kind of thing

 

[ElliotS]

2) For Zulu, Persia, Rome, and Mongolia I could see different policy choices (maybe progress for Rome, maybe Tradition for Persia, maybe Authority for Mongolia/Zulu) and having to focus on different things to make them effective warmongers, but in the end I would still just play them as warmongers. Mongolia has the little mini-game of snatching up CSs for practically free but other warmongers could just take the time to take those CSs the old fashioned way and the result isn't hugely different. Rome turns their conquests into productive members of the empire quicker but that essentially just means that they benefit more from doing what any other warmonger would do anyway. Persia has the mini-game of coordinating golden ages with wars but that's just a small timing thing and didn't feel hugely different when I played them. Zulu's kit basically just says "go authority and conquer everyone" but there isn't much of a mini-game or focus on a normally underused aspect of the game, at least to me. I would love to hear why you think these civs would feel different than the typical game, though- I wouldn't doubt that I am short changing some of the tier3 civs.

A big difference is how ideal army composition, fighting style and strategy changes.

Zulu can really abuse a spearman rush and terrorize people, also focusing on an army that's mostly melee and mounted units. This really devalues ranged units, just because they're too slow to keep up.

Rome meanwhile LOVES ranged units. Where the Zulu are a rampaging hoard, scattering and killing people all over the place, Rome is a sword that plunges deeply and methodically into the enemy. They can use their abundance of GGs to drop citadels whenever they need to in order to take over the next city.

Mongolia is basically Zulu on steroids. You can really take people apart with your hyper-mobile ranged units, and follow up with a more classic force to actually take the cities once you've cleared the field.

Persia's GA timing does matter. Knowing when you'll have the ability to really blitz your enemies is key, and those rushes can be very powerful.

Those are all aside from the proper method of playing them out of combat.

 

[Y.O.]

I agree with Sweden being not really unique, despite me having tons of fun with it as a warmonger. That 3 movement for sieges is such a great bonus, and by the time Caroleons come online, you can melt through cities with no problem. It might also be easier to have a large, annexed Kingdom with Sweden--vs other warmongers--with the 2/1 beta changes. My biggest source of unhappiness as a warmonger is usually because of science and culture (tho this may change for me now that Authority culture kills scales by era in Epic). Skolas can now serve as a pretty strong building to combat local unhappiness.

 

[pineappledan]

I am surprised to see some of the placements higher than I would have put them, and to see Aztec so low.

Aztec plays very different from other warmongers because your UA motivates you to simply "win" wars, instead of conquer and destroy.
- You don't vassalize
- You sue for peace as quick as possible, unless you have a specific goal like a capital, or trimming back a city
- You aggressively pursue war, but rarely aim to pacify other civs. Your goal isn't to destroy civs, but usually to keep them at about a 2-4 city core, which you can farm for GAs and yield kills. Civs which you have thoroughly beaten don't make enough units and don't pick fights.

As for other civs I think are placed too high.
-Indonesia just gives more luxuries. Everyone wants luxuries and everyone trades luxuries. You just get slightly more than other people. If anything it is more unique to play AGAINST indonesia, and basically get to take over someone else's UA, than to play AS Indonesia.
- Dutch get bonuses for trading with other civs. This harshly disincentivizes war, but I don't know if it is truly that unique or interesting as a modification of playstyle. There are other peaceful civs that reward a peaceful playstyle with more than just straight yields
- I would punt Iroquois down to tier 3 too. I think the terrain-based civs in general feel less unique because they only change the criteria for good city placement.

 

[MorphBer]

A big difference is how ideal army composition, fighting style and strategy changes.

Zulu can really abuse a spearman rush and terrorize people, also focusing on an army that's mostly melee and mounted units. This really devalues ranged units, just because they're too slow to keep up.

Rome meanwhile LOVES ranged units. Where the Zulu are a rampaging hoard, scattering and killing people all over the place, Rome is a sword that plunges deeply and methodically into the enemy. They can use their abundance of GGs to drop citadels whenever they need to in order to take over the next city.

Mongolia is basically Zulu on steroids. You can really take people apart with your hyper-mobile ranged units, and follow up with a more classic force to actually take the cities once you've cleared the field.

Persia's GA timing does matter. Knowing when you'll have the ability to really blitz your enemies is key, and those rushes can be very powerful.

Those are all aside from the proper method of playing them out of combat.

Hearing you talk about warmongering is like watching an artist You should really do some photojournals or videos of it

 

[Mad Madigan]

Yes, I suppose you're right about the Aztec.

But the Dutch are pretty novel in my book, being able to generate monopolies through careful trade deals and CS alliances. Plus the Polder makes for interesting enough disruption of my city and tile improvement placing plans. PLUS the Sea Beggar's ability to capture ships shakes up late-game naval combat for them, enough that I'd say the combination raises them into Tier 1 of novelty. The Dutch can manage to stay small (Tradition > Statecraft > Imperialism/Industry) while maintaining a powerful economy and navy bigger than the sum of its parts. But I'd go so far as to say The Netherlands is one of my favorite Civs in VP, so I'm probably a little biased.

 

[crdvis16]

A big difference is how ideal army composition, fighting style and strategy changes.

Zulu can really abuse a spearman rush and terrorize people, also focusing on an army that's mostly melee and mounted units. This really devalues ranged units, just because they're too slow to keep up.

Rome meanwhile LOVES ranged units. Where the Zulu are a rampaging hoard, scattering and killing people all over the place, Rome is a sword that plunges deeply and methodically into the enemy. They can use their abundance of GGs to drop citadels whenever they need to in order to take over the next city.

Mongolia is basically Zulu on steroids. You can really take people apart with your hyper-mobile ranged units, and follow up with a more classic force to actually take the cities once you've cleared the field.

Persia's GA timing does matter. Knowing when you'll have the ability to really blitz your enemies is key, and those rushes can be very powerful.

Those are all aside from the proper method of playing them out of combat.

I'm planning on my next game being a warmonger so I will have to revisit these tactics. I believe I've played every civ at least once at this point, though many have undergone changes since my last play through. I do love tailoring my wars around a given civs UU (to the point of probably creating inefficient armies because I just over do it with the UU to really experience how they play) so I will take these thoughts to heart.

 

[crdvis16]

I agree with Sweden being not really unique, despite me having tons of fun with it as a warmonger. That 3 movement for sieges is such a great bonus, and by the time Caroleons come online, you can melt through cities with no problem. It might also be easier to have a large, annexed Kingdom with Sweden--vs other warmongers--with the 2/1 beta changes. My biggest source of unhappiness as a warmonger is usually because of science and culture (tho this may change for me now that Authority culture kills scales by era in Epic). Skolas can now serve as a pretty strong building to combat local unhappiness.

I could see a highly promoted Carolean with march and the grenadier promotion being really fun. I'm usually very conservative with my melee units and try to keep them alive as the army's meatshield but the Carolean is meant to be daring and aggressive so that could be a fun change of pace.

 

[crdvis16]

I am surprised to see some of the placements higher than I would have put them, and to see Aztec so low.

Aztec plays very different from other warmongers because your UA motivates you to simply "win" wars, instead of conquer and destroy.
- You don't vassalize
- You sue for peace as quick as possible, unless you have a specific goal like a capital, or trimming back a city
- You aggressively pursue war, but rarely aim to pacify other civs. Your goal isn't to destroy civs, but usually to keep them at about a 2-4 city core, which you can farm for GAs and yield kills. Civs which you have thoroughly beaten don't make enough units and don't pick fights.

As for other civs I think are placed too high.
-Indonesia just gives more luxuries. Everyone wants luxuries and everyone trades luxuries. You just get slightly more than other people. If anything it is more unique to play AGAINST indonesia, and basically get to take over someone else's UA, than to play AS Indonesia.
- Dutch get bonuses for trading with other civs. This harshly disincentivizes war, but I don't know if it is truly that unique or interesting as a modification of playstyle. There are other peaceful civs that reward a peaceful playstyle with more than just straight yields
- I would punt Iroquois down to tier 3 too. I think the terrain-based civs in general feel less unique because they only change the criteria for good city placement.

The Aztec mini game of farming your neighbors (kind of like how people use to treat CSs once upon a time) is maybe more interesting than I originally gave it credit for. Though I wonder if that's truly the best way to play them? I could also see just warmongering as normal and after you vassalize/exterminate a civ just moving on to the next one to fight. There's always another civ to go after, and if there isn't then you've won. Though historically, the "farm your neighbors" method is way more in line with their history. I kind of RP when playing this game and tend to try to act the way I think that civ acted historically so I could get on board with that play style anyway.

My thinking with Indonesia is just that they turn normally crappy sites into good ones as they guarantee luxes that you can trade as well as good tiles to work. Though I suppose the same could be said for a few other civs as well (Morocco/Iroquois come to mind) so maybe that's not all that novel. I think you've convinced me that Indo is probably tier3.

I think Mad Madigan is right about the Dutch, though.

For the Iroquois, the instant city connections through forest can make a big deal in a lot of ways, though. You can expand much more rapidly (within forests at least) and this REX style of expansion can sometimes open up some interesting tactics/strategies that other civs can't accomplish as they would drown in debt/unhappiness. For that reason I think they are a step above, say, Indonesia.

So I think Aztecs deserve tier 2 and Indo deserves tier 3.

 

[CrazyG]

India not in tier 1? I'd say he is the second most unique, behind only Venice. A religion focused civ with no missionaries is pretty darn unique. I'd say it changes your game plan way more than Brazil or Byzantium do.

 

[crdvis16]

India not in tier 1? I'd say he is the second most unique, behind only Venice. A religion focused civ with no missionaries is pretty darn unique. I'd say it changes your game plan way more than Brazil or Byzantium do.

I played India recently and didn't feel like not having missionaries was all that big of a deal. The natural religious pressure via population that they have made my religion easily spread to my own cities. I went super-tall and tried to see how high of a population I could get (that was the most interesting thing about them to me- focusing like crazy on growth for the fun of it) so I wasn't even really trying to spread my religion to others. If I had wanted to I could have still spread using prophets. Maybe I was playing them wrong, but the most interesting thing to me was just getting my cities to ridiculously high pops.

My thinking with Byzantium is that their guaranteed choice of religious beliefs mean you get to try out any interesting religious synergies and not worry that some other civ is going to choose one of your pieces. They are the only civ that can guarantee going for, say, a Sacred Sites culture victory (as long as you can reform, of course)- everyone else would have to worry that some other civ is going to snatch up Sacred Sites or that their favorite religious building will get taken. The Sacred Sites strategy is quite different from the typical culture victory.

For Brazil, their focus on not just golden ages but golden age points makes them very novel to me. With any other civ, golden age points are almost an afterthought. I'd even say that as Persia I wouldn't care all that much about golden age points as I would probably rely on bulbing artists, policies, or wonders to trigger my golden ages when I needed them rather than waiting around for the natural GA to begin via GAP. But Brazil makes you re-evaluate policies, wonders, and religious beliefs and heavily weigh each based on GAP in order to get as much of it as you can. Certain wonders that are bottom tier become awesome for Brazil. Certain founder beliefs become way stronger for Brazil than any other civ. Having your happiness as high as possible becomes a big goal for Brazil whereas for pretty much any other civ anything over 10 just doesn't matter all that much.

 

[Stalker0]

I played India recently and didn't feel like not having missionaries was all that big of a deal. The natural religious pressure via population that they have made my religion easily spread to my own cities.

Funny enough I had the opposite experience in my current game. My religion spread so slowly to my main cities as India that I had to wait for my first GP to convert them, which was annoying because I went cooperation and so missed out on a lot of pops compared to when a missionary could have been sent to convert. And my cities were actually very close together. This is not a balance whine, India has a snowball effect to their pressure so I am ultimately fine with it. Its just always interesting to see how different an experience you can have with the same mechanic.

 

[crdvis16]

Funny enough I had the opposite experience in my current game. My religion spread so slowly to my main cities as India that I had to wait for my first GP to convert them, which was annoying because I went cooperation and so missed out on a lot of pops compared to when a missionary could have been sent to convert. And my cities were actually very close together. This is not a balance whine, India has a snowball effect to their pressure so I am ultimately fine with it. Its just always interesting to see how different an experience you can have with the same mechanic.

That's surprising to me - India usually gets their religion so much faster than anyone else that there should be plenty of time for it to spread via pressure compared to another civ having to wait for a pantheon, save up faith for a full priced prophet, and then save up for a missionary. I would think that your religion would be churning out pressure for something like 50+ turns at least by the time other civs are buying their first missionary.

 

[Stalker0]

That's surprising to me - India usually gets their religion so much faster than anyone else that there should be plenty of time for it to spread via pressure compared to another civ having to wait for a pantheon, save up faith for a full priced prophet, and then save up for a missionary. I would think that your religion would be churning out pressure for something like 50+ turns at least by the time other civs are buying their first missionary.

Its a relative scale its true. In terms of absolute turn order you are right I get to my religion faster. At the same time it takes longer for the "benefits" of my religion to kick in since I have to wait for a prophet (though its cheaper) compared to a missionary or 2.

But again that is fine for India, they are more of a late bloomer. Once you have the juggarnaut of religious pressure going lately and like double the pop of other civs you start doing what you do best.

 

[tu_79]

Its a relative scale its true. In terms of absolute turn order you are right I get to my religion faster. At the same time it takes longer for the "benefits" of my religion to kick in since I have to wait for a prophet (though its cheaper) compared to a missionary or 2.

But again that is fine for India, they are more of a late bloomer. Once you have the juggarnaut of religious pressure going lately and like double the pop of other civs you start doing what you do best.

The biggest question, do you use your second prophet for spreading or keep it for enhancing?

 

[IcyAngel]

The biggest question, do you use your second prophet for spreading or keep it for enhancing?

Spread if your religion is at risk of getting overtaken on the continent, otherwise enhance I guess?

 

[Stalker0]

Spread if your religion is at risk of getting overtaken on the continent, otherwise enhance I guess?

Depends on what beliefs I'm going for. If I want to take advantage of benefit on spread I will use the 2nd prophet for spreading, especially if my neighbors are farther away. Otherwise I'll enhance.

 

[CrazyG]

I'd saying using your second prophet to enhance, working almost exclusively farms if possible, and watching and praying your cities flip to your religion soon are extremely unique, game changing features. The Naga-Mala also allows you to rush Chemistry and go really heavy warmonger for a brief time, because AI who are even with you in technology won't have any melee units which can attack it.

For Brazil, their focus on not just golden ages but golden age points makes them very novel to me. With any other civ, golden age points are almost an afterthought. I'd even say that as Persia I wouldn't care all that much about golden age points as I would probably rely on bulbing artists, policies, or wonders to trigger my golden ages when I needed them rather than waiting around for the natural GA to begin via GAP. But Brazil makes you re-evaluate policies, wonders, and religious beliefs and heavily weigh each based on GAP in order to get as much of it as you can. Certain wonders that are bottom tier become awesome for Brazil. Certain founder beliefs become way stronger for Brazil than any other civ. Having your happiness as high as possible becomes a big goal for Brazil whereas for pretty much any other civ anything over 10 just doesn't matter all that much.

I actually don't think Brazil's bonuses for golden ages are even that high. Like, Arabia is generating much more bonus tourism with its UA than Brazil is, right? And Arabia's UA really encourages a different strategy, because every wonder is now appealing, and you sprint to next era and the next great person whenever you can. Brazil wood camps are cool, I'd say Brazil is tier 2 for sure. On the wonders thing, I'm pretty sure the only one is Taj Mahal? What others would I normally not consider, but Brazil likes?

My thinking with Byzantium is that their guaranteed choice of religious beliefs mean you get to try out any interesting religious synergies and not worry that some other civ is going to choose one of your pieces. They are the only civ that can guarantee going for, say, a Sacred Sites culture victory (as long as you can reform, of course)- everyone else would have to worry that some other civ is going to snatch up Sacred Sites or that their favorite religious building will get taken. The Sacred Sites strategy is quite different from the typical culture victory.

You need to consider that a Byzantium who goes sacred sites is basically choosing their UA to be +4 tourism in every city + whatever the third building is (something like synagogues or mandirs), which a pretty underwhelming UA to me. You get a little bit of consistency in that you are never beaten to beliefs, which is a useful bonus but really doesn't change my gameplan much. I have tried to take sacred sites when it was blocked a total of 0 times in years of playing this mod.

I think Byz is supposed to go zealotry warmonger, which is rather generic, you just have more faith than normal. The other thing is to take sainthood, get to the glory of god via reforming as quickly as possible, then spam a disgusting number of great people in classical. Or just take evangelism + pacifism and convert the entire world while racking up science. This was much better with the old churches, but its still a fine strategy. I'm fine with tier 1, honestly I'd just India above him.

 

[ElliotS]

I actually don't think Brazil's bonuses for golden ages are even that high. Like, Arabia is generating much more bonus tourism with its UA than Brazil is, right?

I don't know. I swear brazil has been top tier power-wise in every one of my games for a few months now. Their culture gets them pretty far ahead, and their start makes them hard to attack. Though nerfs to forest and jungle is a good step to lower that BS.