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

[babar]

Unlike 1st, 2nd is a matter of personal preference. I really don't think I can argue it objectively, but it's Gandhi for me because of my favourite trait combo and a top tier UU.

I guess I would rank them: Huayna > Gandhi > Mansa and Ramesses > Liz and Darius

 

[Dhar Khosis]

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

That's not exactly defined. The only information is:

For the sake of comparison, assume deity, nhne, land map, normal size/speed, restricted leaders. If you don't think HC is #1, feel free to say why.

Even if I would strongly assume single player is meant by that, it's not exactly stated.
"deity" difficulty is definitly a setting usable for the players in pure multiplayer or PBEM (with/without AI).

 

[Strickl3r]

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

From my experience: defense = loss

 

[Patchface]

In actual single player, Emperor difficulty games I have gotten the easiest victories with creative leaders, esp. Gilgamesh. Though Shaka and Darius are up there too. Not so much with India surprisingly.

 

[MegaLurker]

I find on Deity in the early game the creative trait tempts you to settle cities with resources in the outer ring that you then eventually lose to the crazy AI culture pressure unless you expend a lot of hammers on culture buldings. You think to yourself "yeah, what an awesome city with all these rousources, this is gonna be a powerhouse!" and especially if it's bronze "Barbs can suck it!" And then you end up with kind of a crappy city and, if you're new to Deity, you maybe also lose your sole source of ivory/bronze/iron/horses and really screw yourself over

 

[Sun Tzu Wu]

I find on Deity in the early game the creative trait tempts you to settle cities with resources in the outer ring that you then eventually lose to the crazy AI culture pressure unless you expend a lot of hammers on culture buldings. You think to yourself "yeah, what an awesome city with all these rousources, this is gonna be a powerhouse!" and especially if it's bronze "Barbs can suck it!" And then you end up with kind of a crappy city and, if you're new to Deity, you maybe also lose your sole source of ivory/bronze/iron/horses and really screw yourself over

Since one is playing a creative leader, early half priced libraries should also be built early, so with 4 culture per turn, I don't think your conclusion above happens all that often. Just place cities so its difficult for the AI to have two of his cities putting culture pressure on one of your cities; your city would need more than twice the culture to fight in such a case (this may actually be the root cause of your losing culture wars).

Sun Tzu Wu

 

[MegaLurker]

Since one is playing a creative leader, early half priced libraries should also be built early, so with 4 culture per turn, I don't think your conclusion above happens all that often. Just place cities so its difficult for the AI to have two of his cities putting culture pressure on one of your cities; your city would need more than twice the culture to fight in such a case (this may actually be the root cause of your losing culture wars).

Sun Tzu Wu

If you and an AI city both have the same tile in the second ring of a city you are losing it unless you put a lot more than a library into culture, and early. It has nothing to do with two overlapping cities.

 

[Sun Tzu Wu]

If you and an AI city both have the same tile in the second ring of a city you are losing it unless you put a lot more than a library into culture, and early. It has nothing to do with two overlapping cities.

Unless the AI is creative too, I don't think this is that much of an issue. If one is near opponent culture, it makes sense to position cities so critical resources are in ring 1 or even ring 0 (settling on the resource is the best way not to lose it to culture).

The AI can settle adjacent to a resource one has in the second ring of a city, unless that city already has ring 3 culture from creative and library. Obviously, the AI will win unless one has the culture of two cities pressing it back.

I agree that you have made a valid point. However, if you have two cities culturally pushing each AI city back, there isn't much the AI can do to push back in return, unless it is in cultural victory mode. Cultural borders can be easily tested in World Builder.

Sun Tzu Wu

 

[pomthom]

The thing is: Deity AIs build basically every building it can in most of its cities so your opponent's city will soon have a Monument, a Library, a Temple, a Monastery etc... I find fighting culture wars versus Deity AIs is tough even if Creative. But Creative does grant you a good early momentum on strategic resources (that doesn't vanish instantly)

 

[Sun Tzu Wu]

Yes, I agree that the AI builds too many culture buildings. A solution is using some espionage points and spies to destroy the AI's cultural buildings.

Note that older (player) city culture (creative trait + library + theatre) has more plot culture value then AI's newer city culture. The Civ IV relationship of city culture to plot culture is also quite complex. There is an article that explains it, but it is still a bit too arcane for easy understanding of it.

Sun Tzu Wu

 

[MegaLurker]

Culture distributes inversely to the distance to the city plot, which is why a resource in your first ring is safe but one in your second ring is not, even if the AI city also has it in the second ring (speaking of Deity, still). The AI will also do things like run artists specialists and building culture. Just very hard to compete, even if your culture claimed the time first, especially if they get their third border pop before you (they generally do on Deity, even if you're creative), which if I'm not mistaken makes culture accumulate faster in the second ring.

Anyway, it was just a pretty simplistic observation. Deity players generally know better than to settle cities that will border the AI for 2nd ring resources even as a creative leader.

 

[Iranon]

I find CRE more of a crutch than a good trait in its own right. If I need culture, I need lots of it - CRE isn't enough, a chopped wonder may be, a well-placed throwaway city may be more practical.

Regarding multiplayer balance: there's Mansa Musa, Huyna Capac, and Skirmisher fodder. Even Persia or Egypt would be unreasonable gambles.

 

[Sun Tzu Wu]

Ok, you don't like the creative trait and don't believe it is a good trait. While there are traits that are clearly better, the creative trait allows one to get early border pops without resorting to Stongehenge, monument or religion spread. One needs to do what is necessary to take advantage of the traits one's leader has. I'm a firm believer in building a lot of libraries with a creative leader, because they are half price, assuming one has justifiably sufficient commerce or food to run scientists when not in caste system. Theatres are another useful half priced building for creative leaders, useful when either culture is needed or the city needs extra happineess, including minor use of the culture slider.

Sun Tzu Wu

 

[cseanny]

Piggy backing Sun here....

CRE really allows for super fast starts. Your Capital gets super fast 3rd border pop, quick access to more research and earlier bulb potential (maths! chop chop war!), greater potential to beeline directly to Alpha (directly with AH > WRT > Alpha) > and straight to Currency (great for mass expansion). If nothing else it speeds up early progress even more because we don't waste time on Myst or the need for monuments. Saving hammers, research, and time is pretty Awesome in my opinion.

However, having said all that, if the land is laid out perfectly so you don't need early monuments and there's enough commerce to get you where you want to go w/out early Libraries then a lot of the charm of CRE is lost. But more often than not the perfect scenario doesn't always pop up.

Give me CRE/FIN with AGR/MIN and I'd be happy with no UU/UB lol.

 

[Iranon]

Most cities don't need early culture, CRE mostly simplifies city placement. When multiple early libraries pull their weight it means we devote a fair share of our resources (commerce or specialists, it doesn't matter) to science, i.e. we aren't expanding very quickly.
CRE helps most when our play is unfocused, which limits how much we can milk it. Not a total loss because it's ok-ish in the most difficult games when we don't have the breathing room to properly leverage other traits.

 

[Kullervo]

I personally have a strong preference for Bismarck. His trait synergy leads to a strong and well-populated late game, and his uniques really dominate the mid-Industrial era. That being said, it's not common that I actually get that late... 1) because I'm not that great a player, though I can hold my own on Deity, and 2) because I play on a toaster which can't run late game too well. But whenever I get a close game, Bismarck is the leader who guarantees me a win out of a more or less even Renaissance era.

Also I have a real soft spot for the German city names.

 

[Sun Tzu Wu]

Most cities don't need early culture, CRE mostly simplifies city placement. When multiple early libraries pull their weight it means we devote a fair share of our resources (commerce or specialists, it doesn't matter) to science, i.e. we aren't expanding very quickly.
CRE helps most when our play is unfocused, which limits how much we can milk it. Not a total loss because it's ok-ish in the most difficult games when we don't have the breathing room to properly leverage other traits.

Most cities not needing early culture implies that the best plots are in ring 1. This is possible much less than most of the time. Thus, I disagree with your conjecture that "most cities don't need early culture". Also, border cities need early culture to avoid losing even ring 1 plots that overlaps with AI culture.

Building creative libraries is simply part of taking advantage of the creative trait. This does obviously lead one to focus on research more for good reason, the libraries are half price.

Choosing to play a leader with the creative trait definitely does not necessarily imply that one's play is therefore unfocused.

The creative trait is ok when one doesn't have enough room to use other traits effectively? This isn't very useful, since it is rare that one can change leaders after knowing whether one's position is cramped though this certainly can be affected by choosing more or less opponents.

Sun Tzu Wu

 

[cseanny]

i.e. we aren't expanding very quickly

Most games I play with CRE leaders allow me to expand much faster than non-CRE one. Those early Libraries allow for quick scientist and immediate/pure research which powers you through Alpha and Currency......often times bypassing quite a few techs until you can backfill via trade.

Plus CRE allows you to work fewer improvements (1-2 food + Lib is all you need) while you continue to really push your expansion (when land is available). Basically saying, you can afford more Settlers and less workers because you don't need as many improvements when compared to a more conventional game.

But yea, I pretty much disagree with every sentiment Iranon posted above. None of those comments makes even a little sense.

 

[Manco Capac]

But yea, I pretty much disagree with every sentiment Iranon posted above. None of those comments makes even a little sense.

You're not the only one. I thought I wasn't capable to decode his high level of abstract, but as you indicated, maybe there wasn't any to be found.

EDIT: Out of curiosity, I checked his earliest posts as I expected, it was not as lifeless as it is not. More humane and understandable.

 

[cseanny]

I'm convinced Iranon is a strong player. Matter of fact, I believe him and I have had similar thoughts in the past in regards to IND and ORG (lots of cities and tile sharing...rivals FIN). However, the two of us have a drastically different view on the value and power of CRE.

I.E., IND and/or ORG have phenomenal mid-late and late game potential.....via Wonder denial and mass city founding (quite literally....like every 3 grid squares). Throw in a slower global tech rate....from Wonder denial and less trading and these traits seems leagues and bounds ahead of........say CRE, EXP, SPI, etc.

Speaking from my point of view, I find CRE extremely flexible and useful because it drastically changes the first 50 - 75 turns of the game which are among the most important. Most games allow you to really drive that early advantage into a much stronger position, a position which most other non CRE leaders would have a hard time doing.....at least in terms of accomplishing comparable results in the same amount of turns.

So to wrap up, I find CRE allows for an explosive start with rapidly diminishing returns. It's not hard to leverage that explosive opening into game changing circumstances much earlier than other potential traits. It might not be IND, FIN, or ORG, but imo it's still quite versatile....and extremely strong when lucky enough to be paired with any of the above.