Best Aggressive Leade *Fixed*

Best Aggressive Leader


  • Total voters
    174
I'm having a hard time deciding between diplo abuse + whip god monty and super-opening shaka.

I had a hard time as well... but in the end I went with Monty even though his starting techs make me throw tantrums.
Diplomatic tricks and a guaranteed unit that's good enough to make a catapult-driven war viable can salvage otherwise tough games.

Both have fantastic UBs that fit my playstyle well, but I like the Sacrificial Altar a little better.
 
I am very surprised to learn that Stalin is aggressive
not surprised he was forgotten tho
his late game unit and building make it so that i usually ignore him in multiplayer
or target the person using him as a noob misguided enough to believe
that they will live to see another turn
 
I find Genghis easiest to play, followed by Shaka. But my highest scores come from Boudica in total-war from the get-go games. I guess I'll have to go with the Mighty Khaaaaaaaaaaaan.
 
I find Genghis easiest to play, followed by Shaka. But my highest scores come from Boudica in total-war from the get-go games. I guess I'll have to go with the Mighty Khaaaaaaaaaaaan.

Genghis welcomes you into his clan.
:)
 
I voted Shaka. Great early expansion (by peaceful means or otherwise) without murdering the economy quite so badly. Also that point about not playing against Shaka is a good one indeed :lol:


Re. Bowman: Even if you have no strategic resources, you can fend off barbs until they get horse archers (i.e. practically forever ;)).
 
I voted Shaka. Great early expansion (by peaceful means or otherwise) without murdering the economy quite so badly. Also that point about not playing against Shaka is a good one indeed :lol:

Re. Bowman: Even if you have no strategic resources, you can fend off barbs until they get horse archers (i.e. practically forever ;)).

Nice points, not often mentioned. The Bowman is a great anti-barb unit. Maybe Babylon is underrated. Although, like you, I favor Shaka.
 
toku or stalin was my choise... stalin got the best axe rush and toku just owns when rifles come... if he can survive..
 
I voted for Ragnar, mostly due to my Scandinavian heritage, but also because I follow the old maxim of playing the map. I really don't think you can give yourself a better leader than Ragnar on a water heavy map, his UU and UB combine to make water warfare and ship based attacks incredibly fun.

This being said however, I enjoy ragnar even on mostly landlocked maps, as even though his UB will be useless, he still has a solid UU (maceman with swordsman's innate 10% city attack bonus, plus being able to attack over rivers is just icing on the cake) and fin is always a decent trait, perhaps not as good as Org, but I think more flexible. Org helps you as you claim cities and expand, but fin helps you constanly. For example lets say you get a bad start are are locked in by a pro neighbor and have no metal readily available, fin will help you if you choose a peace based strategy (for the time being).

As always, there will be certain map types where other leaders will do better, but I think Ragnar has a lot going for him overall for an agg leader and he is an absolute monster on a water heavy map.

Also, I generally play on fractal maps, and if I'm lucky I'll have my continent secured or close to it during the medieval age. One of my fav aspects of Ragnar is should I choose to go mess with another continent (either because they are threatening the lead or just to be a bastard) all those zerkers I have laying around from initial conquests keep their amphibious promos when upgraded. So be it rifles, inf or mechs whenever I choose to go pillaging or conquesting abroad grabbing that first foothold city is much easier, esp with his UB that allows for more movement and general sneakiness in landing your troops.

Finally, in my mind nothing is more satisfying than the picture in my mind of hordes of burly blonde men with axes running screaming over the walls of an enemy city. It must be a throwback from all of the wonderful games I had as the Danes in Medieval 2 Total War.

edit: The above is even more satisfying when its the walls of timbuktu to finally wipe Mansa off the face of the earth, who peace vassaled to shaka long ago and was fueling that bastards research while shaka was out gobbling up half the world as I struggled to consolidate my continent.
 
I was going to vote the FIN civ, but I've always found the Vikings kinda meh.
I then would've voted Monty, but he has worse starting techs and a worse UU compared to my evetunal vote, Shaka.
 
Im really suprised that only 12.5% people voted Montesuma. Because Aztecs have absolutly best UB in game some UBs is good but nothing compares to Sacrifice Altar that let you whip without unhapiness evry 5turn combined with Spiritual trait that allow you change civics evry 5 turns

I think that Monetsuma is best AGG leader, and here is no question about it - since his UB combined with Spi trait is not joke.

(Not sure about Alexander, but philo is probably best trait in game and odeons also one of top UBs)
 
@ alex15: Montezuma is a beast on a forrested map (think Woody II Swords out of Barracks only) . SPI is also good and the UB is good aswell (not saying it's the best) .

Still voted for Ragnar, nothing wrong with FIN and getting Civil Service / Maces very early.
 
I voted for Kublai when the poll cam out, but in hindsight, I'd say Hammurabi is better because of starting techs and uniques.
 
^^ Yep, If poll was asking "which leader is the best for war?" - Gandhi would be my answer.
 
I voted Montezuma too. Can we do the Sac Altar vs Terrace debate that we had in the General Discussion version of this thread now?

(j/k)
 
I had to vote Boudica. She is easy to play--just attack.
 
Years later and it's still Monty vs Shaka. Monty's a bit more likely to bail you out of bad situations though, and that whip abuse is crazy.
 
Back
Top Bottom