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

[drewisfat]

Meaning if 1/4 of the time Darius either doesn't have horses or is in no reason to attack he gets no use out of his UU. And ORG as I point out a lot is a pretty useless trait if you don't get a lot of land fast. (So in this situation it's a double whammy). In fact he may even be a below average leader without horses.

Rome is more solid, in the sense that praets last a lot longer, giving you a boosted attack early or midgame, and iron is more common than horses. Furthermore, while it is "really noob" to self-tech IW, it's also true that you are virtually guaranteed iron on a standard map. So if you're life depended on a win, Rome is a pretty conservative, albeit boring, choice. To top it off Auggie is IND, which is the most powerful and consistent economic trait, unlike FIN which isn't that great if your land isn't meant for cottaging, and ORG which does worse when you're doing worse.

Other "consistent" contenders for me are:
Mansa Musa -- perhaps the ultimate conservative choice, with a defensive resourceless UU, so you can survive the hardest of games (maniacs dogpiling you early).
Gandhi -- Fast workers and SPI areare solid and flexible, and extremely good on quick game speed.
Louis XIV -- Creative, IND and a great resourceless UU make him a solid leader excelling at the tried and true cuir breakout.

I actually question how solid HC is. I have virtually no experience Q rushing because it seems cheaty and boring, but for those more experienced is it really consistent? I've worried that such an early rush would mean a couple of bad dice rolls and a far away target could spell doom to an early rush. While HC has a good UB and traits to fall back on, slowing down expansion for a failed Q rush might ruin an otherwise good position.
I'm curious to those more experienced with Q rushing, would you say it's really a 100% success rate?


As for how you'd weight early UUs like the war chariot and immortal, I don't think it's as easy as that. I think it would depend entirely on how often you expect to win the game. If you only win 10% of your games, then those would be your best civs, because they will autowin you the game like 2/3ds of the time with their UUs. But if you win 95-99% of deity games, you should consider one of the more consistent civs I listed as better.

 

[Izuul]

Well ofc Quecha rush is never going to be 100%. Sometimes there's no AI close enough, sometimes your neighbor is MM or Pacal, etc. However, they are still free barb defense until barb axes or spears show up, and they can take out barb cities.

Beyond that he has arguably the best trait pairing in the game, one of the very few truly great UBs, and his starting techs are decent since he has Ag and Myst is actually somewhat useful with an IND leader since it makes sense to go for Oracle fairly often.

 

[sinimusta]

Also you can use quechuas for choking and worker-stealing if you don't want to go all-out and play risky. AZ did this in one of his inca games. Now you could choke AI with regular units too but with quechuas you don't have to worry about your warriors getting killed by archers and no need to have a strategic resource for better choking unit. I did this against protective AI in one of my games as I thought full quechua rush would have been too costly.

 

[Strickl3r]

For me this is the essence of HC. You are by no means all in, if you are going for someone with a couple of Qs and don't succeed in taking another city. It is not even as worse as losing the Oracle or something like that and you still might get some workers.

Also he is still pretty strong, even if you just use his UU as barb defense and play a friendly expand + Lib MT or Culture or Religious/Diplomatic game.

For example on a water map with no nearby enemy, because of Fin/Ind he would probably still be one of the top choices for a faster GLH and 3C water tiles.

 

[Sun Tzu Wu]

Part of the power of Huayna Capac is the Incan unique building is one of the few cultural buildings that isn't always destroyed. If the targeted Civ has built granaries, there is a very good chance that captured cities will contain terraces; that is like getting creative as a 3rd trait without the production bonus for libraries, theatres and coloseums.

As for the power of the Quechua on Monarch to Diety level: There is a huge bonus for Quechuas on Diety level, since there will be twice as many cities to capture after 5-10 turns, due to the AI's second settler founding a city.

Quechua always start with Combat I, which means their first promotion (Barracks) can be Cover (which also allows Medic I) which really improves their odds against archers or other archery units. With usually just one successful combat (2+ XP), one can add City Raider I. At City Raider II and City Raider III, these units usually win against fortified archers in cties, unless on a hill. Best of all, they cost only 15H at normal speed; straight out of a Barracks, Quechua C1 Cover will either die doing severe damage to an Archer or win and gain 3-4 XPs; either way is a well spent 15H. The better promoted Quechuas can then safely capture the city.

One can also send out a single Quechua to each of the nearest Civs to pillage, choke and most importantly deny metal connection. Next, one can capture 1-2 Civs with additional Quechuas while researching Horseback Riding and Archery to build stables and horse archers to capture the remaining choked Civs, especially those with hill cities. If one can also deny horse connection, quechua alone may be enough to capture the cities of all neighbors.

Industrious trait can keep the research rate at 100% with great and nation wonder fail wealth.

The fiancial trait also helps with the finances of a large early empire via working cottages and shore plots.

There be no doubt that Huayna Capac is not only the best leader, but he is also grossly overpowered too.

Sun Tzu Wu

 

[cseanny]

I did vote Rammy 2nd best.........but in most cases I'd much rather have ORG than SPI. The exceptions would be with stone (but not always) or an exceptional UU/Leader synergy. The only times ORG sucks is on easier levels (Monarch and below) or when you truly get boxed in.

IMHO, Once people learn how to effectively overlap cities and use efficient tile management, proper improvements, and tie this all together with the right tech path and civic, ORG becomes quite strong (Deity/Immortal).

And agree 100% on the Sun Wu post

 

[Sun Tzu Wu]

I am also disappointed that the poll does not list Augustus or Julius Caesar. I do not agree that a beeline to Iron Working is a "newbie" strategy. If one plans to trade for Iron Working, one had better beeline Alphabet; even this will often be too slow. One may lose access to Iron entirely, if one prioritizes another technology like Aesthetics to trade for Alphabet; now one is completely dependent on AI RNG luck. In my opinion, one should beeline Iron Working or possibly Alphabet. At least with Alphabet, there will be almost always be AIs willing to trade Iron Working. Otherwise, no technology trading will be possible until an AI completes Alphabet which can take a very long time.

Sun Tzu Wu

 

[CrazyAntics]

No one has mentioned Montezuma yet, which really bugs me. Yeah, yeah, AGG/SPI aren't the best traits. Yeah, the Jaguar is situational. And yeah, when he's played by the computer he doesn't play well.

But seriously, Sac. Altar is so excellent that all of that doesn't really matter. It takes a little more work than spamming cottages to make the most of the Altar/Slavery combo, but once you've captured the Mids no one else in the game can mass an army like Monte.

 

[lymond]

Sorry, Sac Altar is definitely great, but Monty has way to many negatives against him, not to mention the worst starting techs in the game. He can be fun to play on the right maps/situations (Jags are cool sometimes), but he is no where even close to smelling top tier leader. There's a reason he is not in this poll and that would bug few people here.

I'm not partial to Rome at all, but I could see Augustus in this poll at least.

 

[Fippy]

I seem to rate Sac. Altars much lower than most..so situational, early game is often whip heavy - you will not have the Altars yet. Code of Laws can be a not so early tech..Courthouses are annoying builds if you must build them in cities that cost not much..in some games you might have plenty happy without that bonus..
esp. if you whip Units and grab some land that way, or maybe vassals too, you will have so much happy that Sac. Altars never helped. For me they are a nice example of something that looks great on paper, and rarely gets running in game

 

[Strickl3r]

Rome can't compete with the truly potential 2nd best leaders, like 5-6 characters mentioned in several posts. The OP did say that this is about the potential 2nd best leader on Deity Land Map and Rome is clearly not in that category.

I think it's a good idea to not actually put them in the poll, so the vote doesn't get mixed up by a lot of players which consider Rome the strongest, but don't play Imm+. Because ROme would probably get some votes over the long run, lol

 

[Fippy]

Praets can be very strong on Deity too, there was some dislike of them built up over time (normal, same with Quechas)..but they are strong. CR str 8 units with only IW, why should you not beat even Deity AIs with that.
Augustus should be in this poll.

 

[Strickl3r]

You can beat a game on deity with Rome (or with Tokugawa, haha), but not even close to 2nd best leader imo.
Just saying praets are in favor of many players who vote them and make the vote a race between rome and someone else, while some ais clearly better than rome get no votes because their tendency towards beeing 3rd or 4th best is more clear.

€: For example Iz and Mansa are clearly better than Rome, so is Ghandi and so is Ramesses and so is Darius so no reason at all to put a Rome Leader in there.

For christ sake even Hannibal and Suleiman are better than Rome why am i always try to be diplomatic

 

[Sun Tzu Wu]

The poll should have included all 52 leaders (only 24 are listed by name), except Huayna Capac. Clearly omitting Austugus was a grave error, because he is the second best leader to many players. I'm still undecided at the moment.

Saying leader X is clearly better than leader Y is pointless, because different players will have a different definitions of "better". Even with agreement on what the term "better" means, one needs to explain why leader X is better than leader Y in some detail.

Sun Tzu Wu

 

[Gwynnja]

I am also disappointed that the poll does not list Augustus or Julius Caesar.

I'm not partial to Rome at all, but I could see Augustus in this poll at least.

Augustus should be in this poll.

The poll should have included all 52 leaders (only 24 are listed by name), except Huayna Capac. Clearly omitting Austugus was a grave error, because he is the second best leader to many players. I'm still undecided at the moment.

Unfortunately, the polling will only allow a maximum of 25 choices. I knew I would forget someone that everyone loves so I put an "other" option which a few people have chosen. I wouldn't put either Roman in my top five, probably in my top ten and here's why: A. Imperialistic sucks, B. forums suck, and C. fishing sucks if you're landlocked.

 

[Macksideshow]

I don't think HC even needs Qs to be the best leader for the reasons already given, basically fail gold + FIN (+ terrace). And Qs don't need to be used in a rush to be useful, early barb defense + taking barb cities, super cheap from turn 1 (ok whatever turn barb cities appear but you can build the units for it from turn 1). HC is the best leader.

Is self teching IW still a noob strategy when it gives Praets?

I agree that there is a tendency to over-weight leaders who need certain conditions to fully realize their potential over the more versatile leaders. This leaves Mansa, Elizabeth and Ghandi (who I rarely play but do appreciate) as the candidates for #2 imho.

 

[dohh]

I wouldn't put either Roman in my top five, probably in my top ten and here's why: A. Imperialistic sucks, B. forums suck, and C. fishing sucks if you're landlocked.

Where to put Romans, depends very much on map speed and size. One can get preats really early, and the are basically as good as macemen, properly promoted wil be competitive until cuirs. I would definiely consider romans in top 5 runner-ups after HC.

 

[auagxa]

Unfortunately, the polling will only allow a maximum of 25 choices. I knew I would forget someone that everyone loves so I put an "other" option which a few people have chosen. I wouldn't put either Roman in my top five, probably in my top ten and here's why: A. Imperialistic sucks, B. forums suck, and C. fishing sucks if you're landlocked.

Well you have Willem in the poll even though

A: CRE is only slightly better than IMP and FIN is as powerful as IND.
B: Dikes and Forums both suck but at least you can build forums in your GP farm in most of your games.
C: Both civs start with fishing.

And Praets > East Indiaman in most cases.

I understand Willem has his fans but omitting AC for him isn't justifiable. Also true for the Germans.

 

[Gwynnja]

Well you have Willem in the poll even though

A: CRE is only slightly better than IMP and FIN is as powerful as IND.
B: Dikes and Forums both suck but at least you can build forums in your GP farm in most of your games.
C: Both civs start with fishing.

And Praets > East Indiaman in most cases.

I understand Willem has his fans but omitting AC for him isn't justifiable. Also true for the Germans.

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

 

[Sun Tzu Wu]

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 biases 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 pursue. So, I wouldn't necessarily expect a definitive second best leader, 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 change 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