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

[cseanny]

Well you have Willem in the poll even though

If Willem had Quechua's, WCs, or Immortals I'd put him at number 2. Sure fishing sucks but CRE/FIN is my 2nd favorite trait pairing. Willems traits lets him power REX like a mad man OR power tech to HAs, Cats, or Phants crazy fast. Very very very flexible.

Rome is pretty beastly on the lower levels but on Immortal/Deity I find him far less attractive.

 

[auagxa]

WHAAAAAA? Creative is way, way, way, way better than Imperialistic. And dikes are way, way, way, way better than forums. You trippin.

Dikes are better on paper but you never build them outside late conquest and space games. At least with the forum, you build it when the game is still significant and undecided. If they came early, it will be much better than the forum no doubt.

IMP is underrated. In boxed situations, getting that floodplains-gold (or any strat resource when you have Montezuma as neighbor) spot before the AI could affect the game significantly. An early GG healer can also make a difference in early war when you have relatively few units to go around. Sure, CRE is better but IMP has its uses too.

 

[lymond]

Ha...Forum is undoubtedly one of the worst UBs. It's bonus over base is so negligible on an already expensive building for it's time. I do not build Forums/Markets when the game is still significant and undecided

If the Forum provided static happiness and was discounted like the Sac Alter, then it might be worth building. Otherwise, it is just another Market and I don't build Markets much at all except in very late games. Markets are never close to being a vital building for much of a game if ever. I might throw one in a Bureau cap early or whip one in a GP farm for Merchants, but Caste will take care of that business.

Dikes are always a bit overrated indeed, but the bonus relative to its time is rather significant and you can build it in cities that don't normally allow levees. But yeah, it's only significance is really for Space games - and they can rock then, However, I'd still rate it much higher than Forums because it is something I will actually want to build if I go to that era.

Problem for me with IMP (which is not a terrible trait) is that it really doesn't provide that much of a settler bonus if you know what you are doing. Plus it throws off whipping calcs. It can be nice in "late era starts" when settlers become ridiculously expense as the savings increase substantially when you build them.

 

[drewisfat]

Praets aren't just for low level or marathon game speed games. Yes they are much better there, and get worse as the difficulty and game speed move up. But guess what: so does everything! If anything I think Rome is more valuable on deity quick speed. In many situations you will still need an early war, but most of the ways to get it become much harder. Even HR rushes can become difficult. Having praets still means I can conquer the nearest person consistently.

IMP is a bad trait sure, but it is actually very useful with Rome. As I suggested in another thread, if you are doing a sword rush I recommend using the first GG not as a medic but to spread promos around. Ofc sword rushes aren't a great idea most of the time.... but with Rome that's obviously different IMP usually means your first war will result in two GGs, and you can get the first one in the middle of the war. Throwing some extra promos on praets can turn them from strong to invulnerable.
Also faster settlers aren't that important on deity where you're only building a couple settlers.... but again with Rome in preparation for the immediate praet rush and to secure iron IMP is quite useful.

As to the "forum is bad UB argument" -- this is just not true. MOST UBs are bad, because most buildings are bad. Putting a small bonus on a building you wouldn't otherwise build is useless, so right off the bat at least half the UBs are nearly useless. Noobs may overrate the +25% GPP, but they're also overrating all the rest of the UBs that they really shouldn't even be building. Now the market isn't a great building, but I usually throw one of them in my capital anyways, and I usually get a few GP from the capital. There's even some synergy with IND here. And so if a forum means about one extra GP a game, I will be MORE than happy to have it. One great person isn't tremendous, but it's actually better than the large majority of the UBs.

Techs also shouldn't be a major factor in how good a civ is. If you were to weight the four categories of UU, UB, traits, and starting techs, almost all that matters is the UU and the traits, with UBs next and starting techs least important. They matter a little more on marathon, but it's still not a big deal. Also fishing (and similarly myst) isn't that bad of a tech for IND civs because you can go for TGLh.

Of course I'd still rather have agriculture, but the most important thing for Rome at least, is starting with mining. Also when I say beelining IW like a noob, I don't mean simply self-teching it. I mean half the time when I'm Rome I will start the game off pressing IW or click it after agriculture depending on resources obv. From there put worker turns into chopping trees for more workers/settlers and then settle the 3rd city on iron. It's by no means pretty or efficient, but as Rome the only way to lose is to not get iron, so I would slow down growth to secure the win. After all, the AI cities are still being developed for me

I think people usually overrate synergy and things when discussing the game, but for me Rome's unique things actually all fit together very well.

@Fippy & Sac Altar, I also agree that Sac Altar is extremely overrated. (This isn't surprising, because there's always a secret competition on these forums to find out who loves slavery the most ) The truth is courthouses aren't a great building. They're not worth building early, especially not if you're whipping, and they're not worth it at all on Pangaea. As for whipping, later on in the game happiness becomes less important as you get more resources hooked up and more ways to deal with unhappiness. If you're still whipping your cities are probably pretty small, and happiness isn't that big of a concern. In fact ironically courthouses if I do build them, often signal the last thing I will whip in a game, as I will transition to caste and let cities grow more.

So while beelining CoL and/or using the whip late game makes a lot of sense with the Aztecs, it is not a free bonus, you are being slightly less efficient in other ways to incorporate the Sac Altar, and that's why I think it's overrated and voted Ilkhanda as best UB back in that poll

 

[Gwynnja]

Sorry, I did not realize that polls are limited to 25 selections. There are a few ways around this limitation. Here is one of them that seems reasonable:

Use this thread to explain that three threads will be started with a poll containing 17 leaders each will be opened. After a week, the top eight leaders in each of these three polls will be entered into a final poll of 24 leaders, except the 24 "finalists" are determined by the CFC players that cast their vote that first week in the semi-finals rather than any particular player. This final polling thread will determine the second best leader by popular CFC player vote.

The validity of such a sequence of polls is probably better than a poll of 24 leaders selected as the best by any particular player. Like it or now, we all have our own biased for certain players that reflects our memory of success with them, unless we keep an objective tally, which may still be biased in the way we play the game.

I believe that after Huayna Capac, there may be several perfectly valid second best leaders depending on how each player plays the game and which victory conditions he prefers to persue. So, I wouldn't necessarily expect a definitive second best least, even if the poll favored one by a significant percentage, no matter how one might define significant.

The most important part of the final thread is not the actual poll results, but the well grounded arguments each player writes for his choice as the second best leader. It's these types of logical arguments that may get players to chsnge their minds and support another leader that by objective analysis actually has an advantage over all the others, properly weighted by map synergy, the barbarian factor and all other factors that in the aggregate results in wins rather than losses.

Sun Tzu Wu

That's not a bad idea. I will do that.

 

[Izuul]

Techs also shouldn't be a major factor in how good a civ is. If you were to weight the four categories of UU, UB, traits, and starting techs, almost all that matters is the UU and the traits, with UBs next and starting techs least important. They matter a little more on marathon, but it's still not a big deal. Also fishing (and similarly myst) isn't that bad of a tech for IND civs because you can go for TGLh.

I agree with most of what you said, but not this part. I think that starting techs can have a large influence on the game. Bad starting techs can eliminate the chance to go for the strong early wonders, delay rushes, and just plain get the snowball started later. Strong starting techs do the opposite opening up more options and allowing for a more explosive start.

Having a great UU is obviously more important than the starting techs, and traits have more of an impact on the game, but starting techs can really amplify or dampen the traits.

For example, i think Pericles has some really nice early game traits that should allow for quick libraries and really early GP as well as easy expansion, but his starting techs completely handcuff him to the point that this is not the case. You can get a faster GP out with Louis than Pericles despite the lack of Philo because of Ag + TW vs Fishing and Hunting. It simply takes Pericles too long to get to Writing.

And really most UBs are practically useless so it's very hard to imagine how those are more important than starting techs in all but the most extreme cases (Terrace maybe?).

 

[pomthom]

I'm also surprised by your comment drew, actually I would have thought that starting techs are most critical on Quick speed (which you like)

 

[cseanny]

I'm also surprised by your comment drew

I'd disagree here too. I place starting techs quite high in my criteria for whether or not a leader is even good/playable. I'd much rather be able to hand pick my worker techs and One Trait than have 2 traits and horrible starting techs. The early game has such a Huge impact on how well the rest of the game progresses...........

 

[Fippy]

I think what Drew wanted to say:
Agri + Wheel, very often regarded as best starting techs, can be almost useless on starts that happen on for example continent maps.

I played plenty games there lately with water starts, and got fishing res. for food mostly. Now when you think about the GLH here, how do you use Agri + Wheel.
Right, you do not. At all. You want fishing, sailing, masonry, mining + BW for chops + maybe barb defense. Without fishing you cannot start on a boat too..very messy, and you start cursing your Agri + wheel.

 

[drewisfat]

@pomthom: on marathon you're more likely to run into the situation where your first worker is built before the tech to let it do anything is researched.

@Izuul: I don't think most UBs matter, but the best ones do. I would gladly trade a start with agri/wheel and the dunn, for one with any top 10 UB and myst/fishing.

As for compared to traits, would you rather choose between IND/PRO or between agri/hunt ?

Starting techs don't dominate your game strategy the way UUs/traits and sometimes UBs might. "Good techs" might be useless in some situations that "bad techs" might be useful. Hunting can be useful for camps or getting archers out soon. Fishing obviously jumps up to #1 tech if you've got a big coastal start, for work boats, GLH, lakes, etc. Even myst, which I rarely self-tech, I'm perfectly ok with starting with it. It means I will put a couple early monuments up and am more likely to go for the Oracle.

I do value agri/mining more than the others, because I can immediately research AH / BW if the start necessitates it. But it's still really nbd....

 

[TheMadFiddler]

The obvious answer here is Tokugawa just because any win with him feels so satisfying .

 

[jihe]

I agree with most of what you said, but not this part. I think that starting techs can have a large influence on the game. Bad starting techs can eliminate the chance to go for the strong early wonders, delay rushes, and just plain get the snowball started later. Strong starting techs do the opposite opening up more options and allowing for a more explosive start.

Having a great UU is obviously more important than the starting techs, and traits have more of an impact on the game, but starting techs can really amplify or dampen the traits.

For example, i think Pericles has some really nice early game traits that should allow for quick libraries and really early GP as well as easy expansion, but his starting techs completely handcuff him to the point that this is not the case. You can get a faster GP out with Louis than Pericles despite the lack of Philo because of Ag + TW vs Fishing and Hunting. It simply takes Pericles too long to get to Writing.

And really most UBs are practically useless so it's very hard to imagine how those are more important than starting techs in all but the most extreme cases (Terrace maybe?).

AH -> Writing. Two techs away.

 

[jihe]

The obvious answer here is Tokugawa just because any win with him feels so satisfying .

Not as satisfying as crushing him though

 

[Izuul]

AH -> Writing. Two techs away.

Better hope you start with pigs then. And how do you plan to build that library? Working forests?

 

[jihe]

Better hope you start with pigs then. And how do you plan to build that library? Working forests?

Obviously you go this route only if you have pigs/cows. But yes, building libs on forested hills is quite effective if you are creative.

 

[Gwaja]

I agree with Drew's assessment about the starting techs. I think the strength or weaknesses of the starting techs largely depend upon the map and can vary significantly from one map to another.

For me, the traits are the most important factor in deciding whom one might value as more powerful than the rest, followed by UUs and UBs. In my limited knowledge of this game, I think that what handicaps leaders like Burger King isn't necessarily because of his starting techs (Hunting and Mysticism), but his trait combo just isn't all that great.... and his UU seems like a complete afterthought. I do like the Rathauses but in its stead, I'd rather take Ikhanda + normal Courthouse, or Sacrificial Altar, or even just the "Organized" trait over the HRE UB any day.

 

[Iranon]

Mansa Musa.

He's best at surviving most really ugly games (Skirmishers).
He's better than most offensively (guaranteed ability to rush or wage effective catapult-driven wars, second to none at choking).
Spiritual is good to have for diplomacy options alone, and his economy is still very solid.

While some of the competitors are a smidgeon ahead when everything goes their way, they can't match Mansa Musa for reliability. Darius is very close in terms of overall power, but for my tastes he is too biased towards making already easy games easier.

*

Regarding doubts about HC: He is king because he has both, power and reliability. Fantastic economy for both sprawling and compact empires. Quechua rushes don't have to be reliable every game, what matters is that they are reliable in exactly the games that would be horribly cramped otherwise. In marginal cases we can simply go for a choke, and unlike Mansa Musa we don't need a tech detour.
Upgrade tricks and improved barbarian defense also means our early UU is unlikely to be a total loss

 

[Macksideshow]

Mansa Musa.

He's best at surviving most really ugly games (Skirmishers).
He's better than most offensively (guaranteed ability to rush or wage effective catapult-driven wars, second to none at choking).
Spiritual is good to have for diplomacy options alone, and his economy is still very solid.

While some of the competitors are a smidgeon ahead when everything goes their way, they can't match Mansa Musa for reliability. Darius is very close in terms of overall power, but for my tastes he is too biased towards making already easy games easier.

*

Regarding doubts about HC: He is king because he has both, power and reliability. Fantastic economy for both sprawling and compact empires. Quechua rushes don't have to be reliable every game, what matters is that they are reliable in exactly the games that would be horribly cramped otherwise. In marginal cases we can simply go for a choke, and unlike Mansa Musa we don't need a tech detour.
Upgrade tricks and improved barbarian defense also means our early UU is unlikely to be a total loss

Good post, I totally agree.

 

[bowlie]

I would argue augustus is much stronger than hyuna, but im willing to admit thats just due to my playing style.

Imperialistic means you can get that second city just a tiny bit earlier. It doesnt seem like much, but having a second city to churn out workers, settlers and archers quicker means your first city can get on with building wonders quicker.

Last game i went for stone henge, oracled metal casting for the collossos, great propheted theology and then your set. Wonder city keeps pumping out wonders with their own benefits, but the real reason is the great people that with the forum (an epic building. Essentially makes him half philosophical too) and a national epic you can get every 30 turns or so. Bulbing techs means you stay ahead of the ai even without a super strong economy from financial. Praetorians are stupidly overpowered, especially with theocracy. Extra great generals are just the icing on the cake. Id like to see how your quecha do against my archers while im defending early game, and when i feel like expanding a bit later i have super strong swordsmen

 

[sinimusta]

Id like to see how your quecha do against my archers while im defending early game, and when i feel like expanding a bit later i have super strong swordsmen

These polls are in single player context, multiplayer obviously changes things a lot. Why would you defend with archers against quechua anyway?