Best Aggressive Leade *Fixed*

Best Aggressive Leader


  • Total voters
    174
I like Ragnar for galley accessible water maps, especially with numerous small islands, where the Berserker's free amphibious promotion can be quite useful. His unique building is even more useful on water maps. When I plan to play on a water, Ragnar always comes to mind as my favorite leader, not even restricted to the Aggressive trait. Always try to get both The Great Lighthouse for very powerful foreign and/or overseas port city trade routes and The Colossus for the +1 commerce for water plots which really helps fuel early game research.

There may be better Aggressive leaders like Montezuma (sacraficial altar) and Shaka Zulu (impi which can probably poach workers very easily with its free mobility promotion), but I really like playing Ragnar on galley accessible water maps.

Sun Tzu Wu
 
^ His name is Goldmember :)

Being very bad at aggression, I can hardly choose.
Toku maybe. Why? Because he's Toku :lol:
 
It's sad Firaxis decided to give only Combat I for Agg leaders. I had chance to see another form of this trait elsewhere, but +3 XP. And that impacts much much more than that C1 free promo. As it gives variety of using that trait.
 
When compared to expansive for example, it looks really bad.
barracks vs. granary
C1 on your warriors vs. quicker workers
+2 health vs. nothing :sad:

I mean its use is really restricted to the levels at which warrior rushes are possible.
(Which happened in one of your immortal playthrough Tachy, courtesy of Grasshopa?)
 
If at least the rax gave happiness. Just one.

The devs certainly didn't grasp that economy is power. Not irrelevant boni.

Regarding that trait I was mentioning called Militaristic (yeah, that reminisces me CivIII times) gives +3 XP to various units along halved cost of certain militaristic buildings. It was with K-mod and I can ascertain you...under K-mod, I then overjoyed and was thankful to have that trait. Only C1 would have been utterly insufficient. Too rigid. XP adds flexibility (and free half recover if promoting later). As it was said, defense via offensive is the best of the defenses. In K-mod, it holds truth tenfold.

EDIT: In fact, if the stock BTS AI was utterly asinine, perhaps AGG would be better viewed. In the base game, it is too easy to avoid war through either manipulation or a well-placed hill city.
 
I voted Ragnar, mainly for FIN because I'm a fiend for FIN. Beserkers are pretty awesome too. Woeful starting techs make things tricky, I find that if you can get everything to line up early then Ragnar is devastating.

Berserker war to build up some CR2s and CR3s into Rifles with the option to load into ships. UB allows for circumnavigation bonus giving boats a big tactical edge. Obviously on a non-water map Ragnor isn't as good but he's still not useless, no water can mean you can continue the berserker war longer. But those starting techs are a bit of nightmare, I usually reroll starting positons until I get one that I can work with.

Some good points for Monty and Shaka, I think Monty needs forests and a nearby victim as much as Ragnor needs water, if not more. And I don't think I've ever been able to use Shaka to his potential yself
 
Macksideshow makes some really good points in favor of Ragnar:

  1. The Trading Post giving +1 movement to Galleys or Caravels as needed could definitely provide the edge needed to circle the world first. The extra +1 movement on Galleys can also really make an amphibious attack much easier.
  2. Berzerkers upgrading to early Riflemen would allow large numbers of amphibious Riflemen which would be devastating to nearly all mediaeval era defending units. Berzerkers could also upgrade to Grenadiers which only requires bulbable Chemistry and liberalize Military Science, although Riflemen would definitely be much better.

Sun Tzu Wu
 
... I think Monty needs forests and a nearby victim as much as Ragnor needs water, if not more. And I don't think I've ever been able to use Shaka to his potential yself
Why would Monty need a nearby neighbour and forest?

Yes, the UU does comes early and has a forest based bonus, but it isn't necessary to always use your UU to win games, besides, the Jag can be useful for the whole game as the top supermedic unit (10XP for W3,M1 which is a non GG supermedic equivelant, and only 26XP for W3,M3 strongest healing), and being resorceless it can be a game saver if you do need to force a cat war and don't have any resources.
Forests just open up stack defense and a type of 2 move warfare the AI is even worse than normal at.
The UB is a lot more important, and it has nothing to do with forests, nor is it limited to war, or the early game.

The thing that really harms Monty is the start techs, Myst, Hunting is just awful :cry:

Ragnar is still a fun leader to play for reasons given above.
 
Why would Monty need a nearby neighbour and forest?

...

Ragnar is still a fun leader to play for reasons given above.

Well the key was the "as much as Ragnar needs water", Ragnar doesn't need water either it just unlocks a really deadly unique strategy. Likewise with Monty, if you can get those Jags in and deny metal before the victim can build too many axes its playtime.

You make a solid point regarding the sac alter, my whip game has only just reached the point where I can appreciate it's awesomeness and I totally agree. I also really like Jags vs the AI. And my overall strategies have always relied on abusing an early unique unit so I am sure my opinion is biased by my deficencies at other strats.

In the end it was a tough call for me between Ragnar and Monty as I really like both their second traits and uniques. I was justifying my pick of Ragnar over Monty but they are both really fun leaders to play (once you get past the horrible starting techs)
 
I'm just not a Ragnar fan on most normal maps.

-The starting techs are awful
-You typically can't leverage FIN early b/c of the above
-AGG is in the lowest tier of traits with PRO
-The UB can be very good on water maps, but useless on many others
-Berserkers are only moderately better than regular Macemen in single player games, and, like all macemen, need siege support. The Amphibious promo is thus largely wasted b/c the siege units do not have it.
 
Well the key was the "as much as Ragnar needs water", Ragnar doesn't need water either it just unlocks a really deadly unique strategy. Likewise with Monty, if you can get those Jags in and deny metal before the victim can build too many axes its playtime.

You make a solid point regarding the sac alter, my whip game has only just reached the point where I can appreciate it's awesomeness and I totally agree. I also really like Jags vs the AI. And my overall strategies have always relied on abusing an early unique unit so I am sure my opinion is biased by my deficencies at other strats.

In the end it was a tough call for me between Ragnar and Monty as I really like both their second traits and uniques. I was justifying my pick of Ragnar over Monty but they are both really fun leaders to play (once you get past the horrible starting techs)


I've never experienced Monty as a good early rusher, not even on lower difficulties. Hammy is way better with a simple axe rush and shaka for any kind of choke/rush with his UU. They need copper, but they don't need iron working.
 
I played a series of games with Shaka, Monty, and Genghis in the last week or so (about three with each, mostly on normal speed and large maps, emperor difficulty.) Unfortunately I had god-awful starts as Shaka, but Monty and Genghis... Monty appears to do better in the early game against neighbours with no outstanding combat strengths (IE not Mali or Babylon because their UU's are very good counters to early rushes, if they're allowed to build them) but Genghis really shines mid-game and has the strength to overcome even established empires, and then Monty has a slight advantage in the later game (being Spiritual helps with constant civic changes, appeasement, or war economies, etc.) I hope that makes sense. I plan on doing some Shaka tests, but for now, Genghis is still my favourite and performs best out of the three, though Monty is a very close second.
 
I played a series of games with Shaka, Monty, and Genghis in the last week or so (about three with each, mostly on normal speed and large maps, emperor difficulty.) Unfortunately I had god-awful starts as Shaka, but Monty and Genghis... Monty appears to do better in the early game against neighbours with no outstanding combat strengths (IE not Mali or Babylon because their UU's are very good counters to early rushes, if they're allowed to build them) but Genghis really shines mid-game and has the strength to overcome even established empires, and then Monty has a slight advantage in the later game (being Spiritual helps with constant civic changes, appeasement, or war economies, etc.) I hope that makes sense. I plan on doing some Shaka tests, but for now, Genghis is still my favourite and performs best out of the three, though Monty is a very close second.

How did you play those leaders? Did you base your strategy around using the UUs? Particularly Genghis shining in the mid-game sounds a bit wierd conclusion. Knowing your definition of early, mid- and late game might help understand your conclusions. His strenght is in mounted units, do you consider Keshik age mid-game? I would personally imagine Monty would start performing better mid-game after getting CoL.

I think Shaka was slowed down mainly due the starts here. Faster workers and granaries will be great for early growth and if exp doesn't give enough workers, impis will.
 
Lol... looking bad at this, I still love shaka, but I definitely should have voted for Stalin. INSANE that the IND civ is in dead last on this poll :p
 
Voted for your favorite neighbour.....Shaka :)

This was a difficult one.
Aggressive is mostly an early game trait.
For me it's very even between Shaka, Genghis, Rags & Monty.
Airid map - Genghis/Shaka depending on horse/copper
Water map - Rags
Forest map - Monty
 
So the conditions for all the games were standard map sizes, epic speed (except for the last batch of the three leaders. I got bored.) 9 games total played, 6 on epic speed, 3 on normal, map sizes standard for all but one Genghis game (on which I wanted to test how versatile a Keshik-only rush would be.) I won't pretend like this was a perfect set of tests, but it's something. I've included some details in the spoilers.

Mid-game for me is anything up to... oh, right around the start of the Medieval Era, up to the mid-Renaissance. Anything before that is early, anything after is late game. I tend to drop games right in the middle of the Industrial Era, either because my poor toaster can't take the strain and crashes, or victory/defeat is so apparent I get bored. Fortunately it can run up to Standard size maps until the very end...

Anyway, the first batch of tests was one playthrough with Monty, Shaka, and Genghis (it was in that order.)
Spoiler :
With Monty I lucked out with the start and got a forest/jungle heavy area, allowing me to collect some very lovely Woodsman III Jags, and collect quite a few workers and some techs as peace bribes. The start was a bit rough, but I secured a religion early and used border pops from it to connect resources. I mostly aimed to wear civs out until they were willing to sue for peace, so I didn't take many cities... instead I wiped out any unit I could catch outside a city, stole workers, pillaged improvements... you get the idea. Actually quite efficient early on when not many forests or jungles are cleared out. I was able to keep a fairly large standing army through the power of the whip. This was a good beginning and led to a fairly strong game, though at one point my research spending was rather low, to the point where I was neck-and-neck in the Renaissance. Then, highly promoted upgraded units led to some successful wars in the early Industrial era, coupled with fast civic switches, and by around 1300 AD or so my victory was highly likely. I stopped there.

Shaka... I rolled a REALLY bad start. Food heavy, but it was all one food resource (corn) and quite a few floodplains in the area. I was actually crippled by health concerns early on. Add to that being hemmed in by both Sumeria and Mali, basically the perfect counters to early warfare (damn those Vultures,) and I had a very bad game. I still lasted surprisingly long, but the Impi didn't prove to be much use... a few worker steals and a surprise settler capture didn't amount to much. Although I was doing ok for the game, there were a couple of civs which were just so far ahead by the Renaissance that catching up would have been a bit too much micro-game and effort, so I quit.

Genghis: Decent start, lucky copper in the BFC, plus some riverside golds for my second city. I didn't need expansion past a third city to secure some horses before I was able to crank out Ger-powered HA's. In some cities, I could afford to skip barracks and still get HA's that could be easily promoted into Combat II or other branches. A mounted rush against Korea was successful, and I managed to expand my empire into much better lands than mine... better improved, too. They acquired Calendar early. I bided my time until I researched Guilds (earlier than I normally would, though I didn't beeline it) and attacked whoever was closest without Engineering for those pesky pikes. Keshiks absolutely destroyed everything around me until they finally got Rifles, at which point I had captures several useful wonders, a couple of fantastic hammer cities, and a holy shrine. My victory was pretty much secured before the Renaissance ended for everyone, in pretty much any way I could choose... I was the tech leader, controlled four religions and multiple culture enhancers, and had a fantastic economy.


Second batch:
Spoiler :
Monty this time around rolled me a very nice start. It was on the edge of southern Tundra, which meant that I had two plains forest deer resources nearby, and Hunting as a starting tech. This strong start let me expand early on, so I even indulged and snagged the TOA (I founded a hammer heavy city with marble access, so why the heck not.) I did not use the Jaguar much past barb busting, which was still good enough to promote it to a heavy-duty medic/fighter army. Instead, I focused on heavy religion spreading, building up a solid economy, and used the fast civic changes to appease my neighbours. All hell broke loose right around the late Middle ages, a world war broke out where I sicced my strong religion buddies onto isolated targets and through the wonders of dogpile wars managed to claim quite a bit of land while retaining two or three good allies. Domination Victory pretty certain around 1400 AD.

Shaka was... interesting. I rolled a mediocre start (no luxuries, but hammer heavy) but had Cathy as a close neighbour... so Impis came in a lot more handy. I lost more of them than I'd like during a rush, but I was still able to steal quite a few workers and eventually both her cities (St. Pete was a prime IW spot.) Unfortunately I mishandled my spending, and so I was technologically backward for most of the Middle Ages and missed out on every single wonder except the Sistine Chapel (I like to grab it at least as culture denial.) A few nominal wars to steal a worker or settler here and there more or less kept me going and kept my neighbours on the continent in check enough for me to emerge middle of the pack in the Renaissance. Unfortunately this was one of those games which was so close that it was boring. I was not overly confident in my ability to fight wars, they weren't really confident enough to made dents in each other, so at the beginning of the Modern Age I just decided that I would cheese a Space Race victory. I knew that I would be able to do it, but had no interest in actually doing so, so I left it there. The primary thing, though, was that despite some severe lack of control over my finances, the Ikhanda sort of kept me afloat, and the Impis were very good at stealing workers early on, allowing me to focus on infrastructure and military more. I definitely saw the point of Shaka in this game, even though it was less than ideal and I'm a clumsy Shaka.

Genghis rolled an unfortunate start in that I lacked horses until the early Middle Ages. A late HA rush lucked out for me, allowing me to take two crucial Egyptian cities and securing three different luxuries and a wonder. I rolled some fantastic combat odds, and was able to supercharge two different mounted GG's (I have the weakness of fighting my wars based around GG units.) By the time I got guilds (traded for it with Mansa, actually) I had connected horses and the promoted GG's kicked arse until Cavalry. By then I had again managed to secure a great land and population lead, and though tech-wise I wasn't nearly as well off as I was my first game, I nonetheless was pretty confident that I could pull off a couple of victory types. I had five GG's running around, a large army of mounted units with at least 4 promotions each, and two vassals. The Imp trait really shone this game, allowing me to have super attackers AND cities that could crank out mounted units with three promotions out the gate. I think the Keshik wasn't all too useful, the result would have been the same with regular knights... though given that this was my Large map, perhaps Knights might have been a little bit slower.


Third batch:
Spoiler :
Monty: Awful start. No forests or jungles in sight, at the edge of flood plains and desert, quite a few calendar resources but none before them. Barb busting allowed me to still promote a few Jags, but overall my army was decidedly backward and weaker. I fought a couple of successful defensive wars and one nominal war which netted me a lot of money, a few techs, and a few workers, and kept reasonably alive until the Renaissance, but there my luck ended, and I discovered a dreaded Gandhi/Mansa lovefest on a neighbouring continent. They were too far ahead and too collectively strong to do anything about by the Industrial Era, and were outfitted with Infantry and Artillery by the time I got to Rifles. I desperately tried to pull off a cultural victory using the fact that I had quite a few religions, but by 1600 AD, Mansa was just ahead of me in culture, and Gandhi was beelining space. I don't feel like I could have won at that point. However, I blame this on the bad start. As is, the Jags allowed me to do a uniquely successful defensive war (don't underestimate the WIII promotion,) and the Altar allowed me to build up as good an infrastructure as I could hope for, so I was able to stay afloat.

Shaka: Also quite a poor game, though with a couple of hilarious twists throughout it. This time around my early rush worked perfectly, and I had enough hammers in my capital and second city to collect a lot of failgold. The rush was done by a mix of Impis and catapults, but really any units would have worked, my target was America, and they didn't even have hilltop cities. I managed to expand quite a bit, fueled by failgold and the money saved by the Ikhanda. I got a bit cocky and perhaps slightly underbuilt my army. As a result, a surprise invasion by the friendly Medieval Boudica actually knocked out a city of mine, and though by the end of the war I had achieved parity and was even able to coax a world map out of her for peace (and circumnavigate without building a ship other than one workboat,) it was a crucial setback. One civilization ran away in culture and was already a clear contender for a cultural victory, and so I was quite angry when I discovered that who should it be but Sitting Bull with his hilltop cities and super-defenders. There was no way I was busting those CGIII Drill II longbows upgraded to rifles. Though I was doing quite well, SB and his vassals were just too far ahead. My defeat was secured around 1500 AD when two of his cities achieved Legendary Culture and my army, though doing decent against his fringe, was stalled with no hope of getting to the third in time.

Genghis: REX-ing worked wonders. I strolled into a motherload of riverside gems and ivories in the jungle, just north of my riverside gold and wine start in the plains. Everything up until Iron Working was a bit of an uphill struggle, but everything past then was amazing. With all those lovely commerce tiles, I was able to build up a very impressive empire and still keep my research going strong to the point where when Monty declared war on me, I was able to hold him down by being a clear generation ahead in techs with a small army. I did not actually fight an aggressive war until I had beelined Guilds, at which point keshiks wiped Monty, Cyrus, and vassalized Sitting Bull (in an act of cruel revenge for the previous game, I made it a point to take the Sistine Chapel from him.) I could have easily won a conquest victory on this map, due to insane military production and promotions (This time I settled all but two GG's, of which I had like 7.) The Agg trait was actually useful because I could crank out Combat III maces midgame which were fairly easy to then grind to March or Combat IV, both of which help the healing time and make for faster wars.


So in the end result, Genghis allowed me a victory all three times, Shaka... I'll count it as two, though both were kind of tenuous. Again though, I had quite bad starts and I'm not the best Shaka around. I am still nervous about Impi rushing, because the AI's love their axes. Monty won me two games, though both had excellent starts for him. Nonetheless, Monty's UU is definitely among my favourites in the game, and his UB is useful even for a casual whipper like myself. I didn't find myself to be stopped by his starting techs, and in the second case, the presence of those plains deers and hunting really sealed the early game in my favour. Also a chance at an early religion is nothing to laugh at, as can be evidenced from my clever dogpile game. Genghis... he was definitely the less versatile of the three. Genghis had a more or less purely war game, and I couldn't really see him working too well without a war in the game. Preferably several. Monty really shone later game where his fast civic changes and promoted-from-Jags dominated both diplomacy and the battlefield. Shaka... I just was not too impressed by him. While I can clearly see the strengths he has, I am either incapable of using them correctly or I'm just missing something.
 
Back
Top Bottom