Are some leaders too good to learn with?

[Frodius]

I am a monarch player with aspirations to become an emporer player, and I have a question?

Which leaders do you think are so much better than the rest that they may inhibit your abilty to learn and improve when you play them?

For instance, I just had a very successful game with Darius, but the next game with Churchill is so much harder that I feel like it is almost a different game entirely.

I just get the impression that I could even make a run at emporer now with Darius, but I would get completely destroyed with most leaders.

I would put the caesars and Hayuna in that category as well, when I go up a level I always play Augustus until I get a win, but I don't really consider it a "real win". Incidentally, I always try to make my last game before I move up a win with Charlemagne.

 

[Jedi_Otis]

I think there's a thread around here somewhere about financial trait being so strong it's like playing on an easier level.

I would tend to agree with that. Using a non financial Civ would probably be a better learning tool when you move up a level.

 

[Jaroth]

While some leaders may be easier to use than others, game difficulty has many more variables influencing it other than just leader type. There's map type, how that map type was generated, location, additional rules you set for the game, the opponents you've been matched up against, availability of resources, how densely you packed the map full of civs, etc...

Instead of judging each leader to each other by just 1 game each, try playing multiple games of each and see what comes of it. Perhaps you may find out that you're actually stronger with one than the other.

With regards to Darius, he is usually known as a pretty solid leader since his traits are pretty straightforward to utilize at full potential. His UU is also pretty deadly early on (if you get horses). Cottage spam while conquering neighbors' land early, with reduced maintenance costs and more commerce flowing in to support your expanding empire.

Julius is another example of a pretty solid leader (if you get iron) that's fairly straightforward. Spam praetorians and trample over everything, especially when beelining to Iron working. Organized helps reduce maintenance costs of your expanding empire and allows you to whip out courthouses easier.

Speaking of being straitforward, the financial trait itself is just that, which is why it's easy to take advantage of.

 

[OJimiJam]

Play with random leaders. It really is the best way to learn the most important thing in civ - playing with what you get. Also the easiest way to be good enough to play the next level is to play the next level, if you wanna be emperor level play it and really think and try. When you get that win it will feel so good.

 

[hexem3117]

Play with random leaders. It really is the best way to learn the most important thing in civ - playing with what you get. Also the easiest way to be good enough to play the next level is to play the next level, if you wanna be emperor level play it and really think and try. When you get that win it will feel so good.

I agree heartily. I'm soon going to attempt to move up to Monarch, but I was finding Prince to be a little hard...I started using random leaders, random landmasses every time, so I really had to play the map and civ. Worked out well, I can usually crush Prince now, though I end many games when I see I'm clearly going to dominate. For instance, I decided I'd do ONE more game and then move up a level. Who did I draw? *Huayna Cupac* along with a mess of floodplains, grasslands, grassland hills, forests, not to mention loads of resources including marble AND stone. Wow. No bad tiles around really except for a few desert.

Not very challenging, to say the least.

 

[ParadigmShifter]

I like flexible leaders rather than the very good ones (Inca, Rome, Darius).

So I like Hatty, Cathy and Liz best, with a nod to both Greek leaders.

 

[Crusher1]

Using random leaders is a poor way to learn the game. The superior method is to pick 1 or a very select few and master each level with them and once you become comfortable branch out to more leaders. This method has helped me work my way up to winning Immortal at will with random leaders (started with a few).

There is no point being the "jack of all trades and master of none". Civilization is a complex game which can be very confusing and their are plenty of choices to be made with 1 leader, let alone all of them.

I piggy back some of what Shifter is saying. I think good choices which don't verge on overpowering are:

1. Hatty
2. Cathy
3. Sury
4. Zara
5. Asoka
6. Pericles
7. Liz
8. Pacal
9. Shaka
10. Willem

 

[mechaerik]

I believe Willem is really strong. On my first noble game, i totally kicked ass, but then my next one, i only just won.

 

[Frodius]

I am beginning to agree with Crusher1 on this topic. I think at times I over complicate things by trying to learn how to play the map at the same time as learning a new trait combination and civ at the same time.

 

[Jaroth]

Play with random leaders. It really is the best way to learn the most important thing in civ - playing with what you get. Also the easiest way to be good enough to play the next level is to play the next level, if you wanna be emperor level play it and really think and try. When you get that win it will feel so good.

I concur.

That's how I play, random leaders on standard settings.

That really is what it's about, playing with what you get and adapting. There is no one way to do something and very few guidelines are set in stone. Strategy at its best.

EDIT: Though, Crusher1 has a very strong point too. That can be a useful method of learning.

 

[UWHabs]

When I play, I usually play for a reason. So, I might play to be like, "I haven't played a financial leader in a while" or "I feel like kicking butt. Let's go with Ragnar and Berserkers" or "I still haven't tried Oromos, and Zara is a good leader, so let's try that."

I would say moving up, play with one of the better leaders (Darius is best, IMHO), so that the transition is a bit easier. Then the next few, try with the second tier leaders or civs, so maybe ones that don't have very useful UU, or whose traits aren't your favourites. Then once you've got the hang of a level, play with whoever.

I don't mind playing with random leaders, but in general, I'll go random leaders, then I'll either get a leader who I just played with recently, or one who I don't feel like playing with (maybe I don't want to play a game with a financial leader, for example). It'd be nice if there was a "regenerate everything", which would take the same settings but randomize the leaders and maps, so that if I decide to not play that level, I don't have to go back to the main menu and re-select what I want.

 

[crazybuilder]

Stalin for the Win... !!
I am a prince player... i always roll maps with stone supply within the first city...

 

[Shurdus]

This thread contains quite a few good suggestions for a leader to pick from. Financial is not overpowered at all. In fact, it requires quite an investment to pay off. Sure the cottages are nice with financial but you must work those to make them pay off. Other leaders are not so dependent on working these cottages to make the most out of their trait.

Now of course it is not exactly a punishment to work cottages but I am just saying that other economic traits are a little bit more flexible. I would say that organised is more useful than financial.

Anyway, picking a leader that you like is perfectly fine. You should not torture yourself with dealing with both the new level and a new leader. See what the game is like with a leader you think is solid, then when you feel like you know what you can expect you can get a leader picked at random.

 

[fed1943]

While learning the problem is not more or less strong leader.
Just avoid, at the beginning, the traits that require or allow
special ways: Creative or Spiritual.
Best regards,

 

[Shurdus]

While learning the problem is not more or less strong leader.
Just avoid, at the beginning, the traits that require or allow
special ways: Creative or Spiritual.
Best regards,

Avoid them like one would avoid forcing a new line in the middle of a sentence?

I can see the logic behind that advice yet I feel that any trait you are comfortable with is perfectly fine. Pick a leader you like to see what is up. Then when you are comfortable you can always complicate things further and look for new challenges. I think Crusher1 makes a good point towards this and I concur with his advice.

 

[Frodius]

My new philossphy is going to be trying to focus on leaders that aren't "tier 1", and also don't depend on a particularly strong UB or UU to win. I figure that will allow me to get a more general approach to deciding on a good tech path, and a better idea of how to leverage traits. I'm thinking of concentrating on civs like the Germans, Americans, Greeks and French, because they have strong traits, but don't have UU's or UB's that will dominate the way I want to play.

 

[swineflu]

Julius Caesar in my mind is overpowered. As long as he has a source of iron it's a very very easy win.

Beeline to Iron Working, whip/chop a ton of praets and as long as you tech right (get COL and HR)and can recover your economy you will win. Your "early rush" can be kinda slow and you can actually make a lot of mistakes and the praet will still carry you a long ass way. Recovering his economy is quite easy with HR for big happy populations and cheap courthouses that can be whipped up as soon as you tech COL.