Assuming HC is the best leader in the game, who is #2, and why?

[enKage]

There are plenty of leaders who can be mentioned here: Ramses, Darius, Pacal, Mansa, Sitting Bull (oh common, he is strong enough with his nice UU to be mentioned here...) DeGaull, Vicky, Lizz....

but my choice is Pericles. excellet trait combo for my default victory condition, early UU with no counter. Only 2 reasons, but very strong reasons.

If extended to top5:
Pericles, Ramesses, Hannibal, Pacal, Darius

next five to top10:
DeGaul, Vicky, Mansa, SB, Mehmed


worst5:
Toku, Charlie, Isa, Mao, Wash

 

[Rainy Days]

Sorry, but this is a bit illogical especially considering that Gandhi has arguably the best (and earliest) UU in the game, less Q's. "Early UU" does not necessarily get you out of tough situations any more than standard UUs. Granted some of them are good for rushes or barb defense. However, good players do just as fine without them. Gandhi has great traits and UU and is actually a very good warmonger, as is Asoka.

Gandhi is not in my personal Top 5, but he would be #6. Ofc, we are talking about human player here, but it is interesting to note that Gandhi is twice winner of the Deity AI tournament.

I meant a good military UU obviously.

I think a top leader should be able to insta win games with early war. And have good survivability against early daggers. Gandhi doesn't really have either. The reason why I would rank Gilgamesh above the persians or egyptians is because he's the only leader that can actually properly rush a deity AI with copper units. Which broadens your options. Also he's a safer pick in a no military resource game.

Creative OP. Anway... Gilgamesh-fanboy-mode activated.

 

[auagxa]

I'm a bit surprised that AC isn't on the main choices. The two Romans are better than WvO bar water maps and unrestricted leaders.

 

[vranasm]

voted darius since he has very good package too.

was close call with egypt leader, fin+org won over spi+ind in the end.

I could see why people voted Ghandhi

 

[drewisfat]

The problem with these questions is what "best" means is never elaborated on. Does it mean gives the highest win percentage? Give the earliest win time ever? Have the earliest wins on average? or something else. (and of course which victories count).

There's several UUs (war chariots, immortals, praets, etc.) that should all be instant win if you can get them early on and there are reasonable targets. War chariots are faster/better than praets, but horses aren't always available. (Iron is virtually every time if beelined). So whether you value consistency or high scores is going to affect whether you think rome or egypt is better.

 

[Macksideshow]

I went with Liz, for the trait combo. Mansa would also be a close for me.

 

[Robert FIN]

Voted for other leader (JC). Julius Caesar is my favourite because of pretty OP Unique Unit, Praetorian, and the great traits which support the Preatorian rush fine. And JC/Rome are my personal historical interests with the Mongols and Japan which have pretty bad leader traits in the game. I never even tried HC because Quechua sounds so unfair!! So OP so early.. What did the programmers think?

 

[pandamancer]

I picked Mansa for his flexibility in early warfare/empire management/civic options.

It is true that his UU is not as powerful as the Praets, WC, Immortals. But I think when used well, you can stagnate your rivals in the early phases of the game.

Add that with the flexible spiritual trait and the powerful financial trait, you got a leader and civ that is well rounded in most of the situations.

 

[Izuul]

I'd probably go with Ramesses or Darius.

Louis XIV is my favorite leader that does not have a power UU. Love Creative + IND and the starting techs in the early game. I really like DeGaulle too.

 

[Aje]

I voted for Ramesses as second best leader in the game IMO.

I'm just a noob player, but I deviced a Little Point system to answer your question.
Basically all leaders gets Points for traits, starting Techs, UU, UB and possible extra Point for synergy.

Traits: 3 Points for IND/FIN/PHI, 1 Point for AGG/DEF and 2 Points for all the other traits.
Techs: 2 Points for TW/AGRI/MIN, 1 Point for the others.
UU: 2 Points for super UU, 1 Point for ok UU & 0 Points for unusables
UB: Same as above.
Synergy: 1 extra Point if some of the things above match.

This leads to maximum value of 15 (which no leader has).

HC gets 14 Points.
(FIN 3 + IND 3 + AGRI 2 + MYST 1 + QUENCHA 2 + GRANARY 2 + SYNERGY 1)

Ramesses gets 13 Points.
(SPI 2 + IND 3 + AGRI 2 + TW 2 + CHARIOT 2 + OBELISK 1 + SYNERGY 1)

No other leader gets 13 Points, but several gets 12 i.g. Gandhi, Mansa, Darius, Pacal.

This newly deviced noob Point system is offcourse subject to a lot subjective valuation, but I Think it gives me some help in ranking the different leaders.

 

[Macksideshow]

+1 for the point system

 

[Strickl3r]

UB imo nice, but not very important, so i wouldn't count it the same as UU.

€: In generell i mean, not refering to Ramesses

 

[Izuul]

I don't think you can accurately weigh the value of the exceptional UU's using 0-2 scale. The quecha is 15H, resourceless, available on T0, and can kill off a Deity AI by itself. If a second tier UU is worth 1pt the quecha is worth like 5pts.

 

[Strickl3r]

Izuul is right, but maybe go 10 points on the UUs, so you can go 5 points on the UBs.
For example, if you count the Obelisk as 1 point you might wanne count something like the Mint 2-3 points and something like the sacrificial altar is already by far better than the Mint, so that might be the only 5 points there. just a thought

Nice idea with the points system

 

[dohh]

Hmm, HC is definitely best leader whilst playing against AI. In multiplayer, I would not be so sure.

In this poll, I would probably go for Romans (marathon) or Darius (other speeds), closely followed by Egiptians.

 

[Aje]

Thanks for positive feed-back.
I have not played enough games to make correct scale for the different categories.
But I've tried a Quencha rush and worker steal on diety and that obviously works well.
They are however not as strong on Prince and below where the AIs will build warriors instead.

I was not going for a specific difficulty, maptype or speed. The points will differ a lot depending on these so I was more oing for some average estimate.

Maybe the obelisk isn't worth a UB point and then Ramesses is at the same level as the other top leaders.

There could also be additional extra point categories like "flexibility" or points for tilted towatds specific VC i.e. Ramesses going for AP cheese, Boudica going for Conq/Dom, Gandhi going for Culture.

Sorry if I'm to much off topic.

 

[dohh]

Thanks for positive feed-back.
I have not played enough games to make correct scale for the different categories.
But I've tried a Quencha rush and worker steal on diety and that obviously works well.
They are however not as strong on Prince and below where the AIs will build warriors instead.

On prince one can scout map and finish off 2 first enemies with single warrior on marathon speed. Cities are empy, if AI starts with scout.

Then build more warriors and finish off 2-3 more civs....

 

[pomthom]

I don't want to be voting for civs with powered early military UUs because they imply using a very specific strategy and/or lose their advantage if they don't have the appropriate land or strategic resource.

I agree with drewisfat on what we intend about "best". Darius with no Horse is Darius with no UU and less rushing potential which is the #1 reason for putting him up there...

To me "best" leaders are leaders that can adapt to the most wide range of maps and situations. Flexible leaders. They won't necessarily win as quick as another leader who has greater synergy for the same map/strategy, but flexible leaders win more consistently.

IMO the 2 top flexible leaders are Mansa and Gandhi (Ramesses and Hatty are good too regardless of UU). OK maybe I'm a big fan of SPI...

I prefer Gandhi because PHI is even more flexible than FIN, and because Skirms aren't always useful. Gandhi's big downside is Mysticism...

Disagree with Rainy Days about Gandhi not having tools to get out of tough situations, SPI is #1 trait for that IMO...

 

[Izuul]

I don't want to be voting for civs with powered UUs because they imply using a very specific strategy and/or lose their advantage if they don't have the appropriate land or strategic resource.

Just because they won't have their UU every game or won't be able to exploit it to it's full potential doesn't mean it should be discounted! At the very least you must weight it somewhere in the middle. (100 + 0) / 2 = 50 not 0.. if you catch my drift.

 

[pomthom]

Just because they won't have their UU every game or won't be able to exploit it to it's full potential doesn't mean it should be discounted! At the very least you must weight it somewhere in the middle. (100 + 0) / 2 = 50 not 0.. if you catch my drift.

I do. I meant it in the way I illustrated with Darius.

With no Horses he doesn't benefit from his UU, if he doesn't win an early/mid war ORG is much less useful etc... He's still a strong leader, don't get me wrong.