Best and Worse Leader's to start a game

[The Rook]

OK, I have been thinking of this for a while and having played almost all the leaders in BTS at some point. I am talking about traits, starting techs, UB, UU. Say establishing a good empire between 1000BC to 1 AD, warring if cramped by an AI, rushing an easy victum, Wonderbuilding, peaceful expansion, or teching.

Isn't "establishing a good empire between 1000BC to 1AD" the same as simply "establishing a good empire"? Have you ever established a strong position by 1 AD and lost, without blundering the game away?

Early UU/UB's create an early advantage which can be sustained an compounded upon throughout the game if used effectively.

I agree. Imho that would apply to any early advantage. You might find in the late game that all your aces have been played, but don't forget that without the early initiative you might be a city/wonder or two poorer.

 

[SnowlyWhite]

best(on a relatively high lvl. - immo/emperor or so)

early period

#1 - sumer. The vulture is a swordsman on steroids and most important, he does an excellent job at handling both archers and axes in a city assault should you early rush(if he'd been aggresive instead of protective things would be really gross ); creative means you can block anyone at your leisure, combined with zigurat at a measly ammount of beakers away means you won't care too much about maintenance should you have to go some 15 tiles away from your cap. with your 3rd city or so in order to seal off someone. With enough wood in your cap. bfc. might even get oracle since priesthood is natural for you. Protective is meh, though probably you can run some drafting since ce ain't a must with him(though I always prefered ce, thus I pretty much hate protective as there'd be few opportunities to draft).

#2 darius - financial - best trait in this game; organized - damn good trait too. When you see -2 when founding your 2nd city instead of -3, it really feels good - now, 1 commerce might not be much, but 1 commerce in -3k is a whole different thing then 1 commerce in 1.5k. 1 commerce back then is probably 5-10% of your whole income. Furthermore, it's half the ammount of hammers courthouse.
The starting techs are good(I don't mind hunting when paired with something powerful like agri) and perfectly combined - cheapest possible ah research(since you start with both prereqs), then wheel, then connect the ponnies, then rush if there's anything to rush

#3 HC. He's definitelly the best thing hammer spent/conquered city if you want an early rush. Both traits are great, with fin. being my fav.; early stonehenge is good. UB is decent(though without expansive, he's soooo many miles away from a creative leader since that terrace really takes it's turn to be built). Starting techs are good and pair well with his traits. I mean, you can do half a stonehenge while you wait for poly to be researched if there's nothing workable in your cap. bfc.
Not having to worry about barbarians for quite some time is super.

I only rate him 3rd probably just because I did so many q rushes in warlords I got bored about him, so didn't play him in a long time

#4 1 of the caesars. pretorians are pretorians... even a 3 years old child could use them...

worst... anyone with 2 of protective/expansive/imperialistic; and obviously saladin, since, while spiritual is quite strong, the ub is poor, the uu is crap, the starting techs are a miserable combo. Also monty - while his ub might be great, his starting techs are horrid and his uu is... like, gimme back the swordsman, thanks... Post bts, brennus too, since charismatic is way less powerful then warlords.

whom I don't like - the greeks. I consider 2 types of war - early rush, where he doesn't have any SoD and normal war. In an early rush that phalanx doesn't help - it still has str 5 and is weak on city assault vs. archers which are dominant and 100% vs mounted units is solved by having the decency to keep 1-2 spears in your SoD... In a normal war, after waiting for his SoD to get inside your teritory and trashing it(just build catapults... if you lost, you didn't build enough catapults or you didn't wait for his SoD), it's again all about what's faring best in city assaults - hence why I don't like the chinese or hre uu's either.

Hence, as UUs, I'd rate as good immortals, quecha(for being cheap), vulture, zerkers(especially since they retain amphibious when promoted, which helps when playing contients or anything with naval invasions) and things like that. Obviously pretorians, but I hate playin' romans... feels like cheatin'...

 

[CivCorpse]

Gilgamesh is Cre/Pro, not Imp/Pro.

Worst leader is Saladin. Bad UB, Protective, Bad UU.



In the same fashion, do you consider a Monument half a creative leader? Because I certainly do not.

No because a creative leader can build a monment as well. But with a granary giving +2 then it balances the creative bonus for culture. But cheap libraries are nice and not having to worry about a culture building for your first border pop is nice. The UB does not equal being creative but it helps if you bump borders with a creative civ.

 

[morchuflex]

I play as a builder on Emperor level and for a strong start, I love Louis. Creative helps gaining land, boxxing in the AI (with chokepoints) and securing resources, and Industrious allows me to get any wonder I want before the AI. If I play a water map, I am sure to beat the AI to the GLH, which is pretty much all you need to win on archipelagoes. If I have stone, I'll beat anyone to the pyramids.
Starting with the wheel also garanties your worker will have something useful to do immediatly.

However, I agree that the French UU and UB are only acceptable.

And yes, Capac is so ridiculously good that I long ago made a rule never to use him.

 

[Silence101]

whom I don't like - the greeks. I consider 2 types of war - early rush, where he doesn't have any SoD and normal war. In an early rush that phalanx doesn't help - it still has str 5 and is weak on city assault vs. archers which are dominant and 100% vs mounted units is solved by having the decency to keep 1-2 spears in your SoD... In a normal war, after waiting for his SoD to get inside your teritory and trashing it(just build catapults... if you lost, you didn't build enough catapults or you didn't wait for his SoD), it's again all about what's faring best in city assaults - hence why I don't like the chinese or hre uu's either.

The real advantage with the phalanx that often gets overlooked is the ability to build a larger, balanced army with the same production numbers that any other civ would have to spend on building a balanced military. Granted, phalanx are at a disadvantage 1:1 when facing fortified archers in cities (most units from the era are), however, each individual phalanx represents a balanced unit with no real weakness... that's something that you typically don't see with other units and it represents a huge early game advantage... because if you can only build 10 units, you may build 6 axemen, 2 spearmen, 2 chariots, (representing a balanced stack) and when you get to a target city, you've really only got 6 units that are a threat. With Greece however, if you can only build 10 units, you build 10 phalanx (representing a balanced stack) and you've got 10 units that represent a threat to any city.

 

[CivMcNut]

Difficulty level would have a lot to do with the choice too. Someone that starts with mystism on a lower level would be a good choice as it is quite possible to get an early religion out of that. On a higher difficulty level mystism would be a bad tech to have. I agree with Futurehermit in that fishing really depends on the map.

Expansive trait would be a waste on lower difficulty levels as you get a pretty good bonus on health from difficulty level. Higher difficulty levels, it can save an early city from turning polluted.

Organized is one of the best traits to have but it takes a long time to really become important, so it wouldn't be good for the start.

Any leader with aggresive if you plan to attack, or protective if you plan to build would be a good help early on.

Charismatic is another good one for early.

Philosophoical is a tough one for early, hard to get enough specialists going, and universities come mid-game.

I guess the crowd favorite for best early leader is HC. One time I did play him I thought a Quecha rush would be a lot of fun, but I was a long way away from my first victim on that game and never got to see how much fun it would have been to have warriors on steriods beat the snot out of archers.

 

[The Rook]

I guess the crowd favorite for best early leader is HC. One time I did play him I thought a Quecha rush would be a lot of fun, but I was a long way away from my first victim on that game and never got to see how much fun it would have been to have warriors on steriods beat the snot out of archers.

I'm sure you must have had some fun with the easy rexing in the space left between yourself and the AI . Cheap SH, 15 shield anti-barb units, Financial to support expansion. I think HC may be a candidate for the #1 rexer as well as the #1 rusher.

It's interesting that several people who have suggested alternatives to HC have mentioned that they don't use him because he is too good . I must admit, I've stopped playing him for the same reason.

 

[Diamondeye]

I dont find HC that nice, maybe he does not compliment my style well (although I am unaware of what style I have ).
I find Willem more overpowered, his UB is way better than the Incan one, and his traits also (Cre beats Ind by miles).
Also, Sumer seems a rather good civ, Fine traits (Cre/Pro), good UU and hardcore UB...
Also, Mansa Musa can be okay. Financial is always good and his skirmishers are good for antibarb action aswell as a solid early defender. His UB is sort of bunk, but whatever.

Worst leaders earlygame - Well, Japan is lousy really earlygame, very hard to play if a rush is not possible, and UB is not ery good, traits are very one-sided. Also, although I like em, I'll have to admit that the english are not the best starters, apart from Fin in case of the females and Pro in case of Churchill.

 

[troytheface]

Napoleon, France. The blue color is easy on the eyes so if in a game of extended play your optical endurance won't suffer. The UU is the best in the game and the traits are solid.

 

[Silence101]

Napoleon, France. The blue color is easy on the eyes so if in a game of extended play your optical endurance won't suffer.

Yeah, that's gotta be one of the most overlooked advantages of the French. After playing as Tokugawa of Japan for a few hours, I can't tell you how many times I've started to flip out and see shades of red everywhere... it really interferes with my long-term game strategy.

 

[AnyKeyz]

Favorite : Ramses with Stonehedge

Worst :HC

Before you kill me, I am a simple Noble player, but I hate HC. How can a UU rush can be so attractive, when the unit is weaker than a normal swordman ?

Feel free to explain

 

[madscientist]

Alot of people view the Incan UU as the ultimate early rush. I view them as the ultimate early defender. They defend great against archers, so you can put off archery a longtime as well as the other military techs. He cna then focus on pottery, the UB, and a few early wonders as well as fast expansion. Very versatile.

 

[CivCorpse]

Mad, you are sort of mixing bst starting leader in with best starting civ. leader's strength should be evaluated on how his traits effect the early game on their own. Or did you mean to evaluate the leader/civ combo without unrestricted leaders? If so then anyone with the last name of Caeser is top dog. If you have iron. HC's UU is extremely short lived and is dependant on a civ being nearby. We both play on the slower speeds so it is a bit better for us. But Prats last a long long time. And they are the unquestioned unit in need of a nerf. And IIRC they are both Org leaders so they get to keep more cities they conquer. My very best score/finish time was with rome...as was my second best. Prats are even better for winning border culture wars with creative civs. I will bet you a large sum of money in any currency you wish that i can flip more cities with prats than you can with the aztec UB....and I'll throw in stonehenge for you as well.

I agree Charlie is a tough start based on his techs. I rarely shoot for religions anymore since moving to monarch/occasional prince game so spiritual doesn't help and if I don't have deer/beavers/jumbos then hunting is only good as stepping stone to AH.

One of my favorite leaders for the early game is Sully of the ottomans. Philosophical is just peachy keen. Imperialistic is pretty good in the early game for rexing with cheap settlers and I am a great wall-o-holic I hate barbs with a passion. So i make it a top priority. With the philo trait I am getting a great sneak fairly soon which gets settled and the next one is scotland yard. I have found that one settled Great spy with scotland yard is nearly enough to supply me with enough espionage for most of the game (i tend to neglect espionage until lately. what can i say I am a lowly monarch type-o-guy). The UU and UB are pretty spiffy as well. If you play the slower speeds like I do, the getting the wheel and agg as starting techs is a big plus. They are the two most expensive starting techs so you have a tech lead from the get go. And can research pottery immediately. All around a pretty good guy to play.

 

[CivCorpse]

Favorite : Ramses with Stonehedge

Worst :HC

Before you kill me, I am a simple Noble player, but I hate HC. How can a UU rush can be so attractive, when the unit is weaker than a normal swordman ?

Feel free to explain

When you play monarch and above. The AI starts with archery so you are attacking fortified archers. You can build warriors dirt cheap and don't have to research anything. So while the ai is building something besides troops in the early game you are massing quechas. They are cheap and disposable. If you wait until axes then the ai has had time to build garrison troops, tech BW as well and start building troops as well. Plus a quick quecha rush can get the ai before they have slavery for whipping more defenders.

 

[Iranon]

Most defenders will remain archers for a long time. A very fast rush (think a half dozen Quechuas before anything else) is possible especially on high levels when there will be juicy targets defended by archers from the very start of the game.

Quechuas remain a cost-effective way to fight defending archers for a long long time. You can try to deny your opponents military resources, or to bait defending Axemen with other units (like Swordsmen). Those who claim that Quechuas are good for a very early rush only and have no shelf life don't really use their potential to the fullest imo.

 

[DrJambo]

Best:
Hannibal/Carthage (Fin/Cha).
Good UU which comes early but does require horses. The UB is also very good if you can acquire some coastline. Not usually too hard in the majority of cases. I believe that the traits are the best combination to have in the game, with the possible exception of Phi/Cha (Lincoln). I'd also lump Willem/Dutch in here in terms of potential top civ, mainly because his traits and UB rock, although I've yet to actually use him in BtS.

Worst:
Mao/China (Exp/Pro).
I'm not a fan of Exp/Pro and therefore Mao ranks pretty low in my estimations. His UU is good however, and does somewhat make up for his poor traits. Charlemagne (Imp/Pro) also has poor traits for a human, but his UB is fantastic and one of the best in the game.

Edit: Oops, just rated civs in general, rather than specifically for the early game.

 

[Bhruic]

I can't believe no one has picked Mansa Musa yet.

Financial needs no introduction, of course. Spiritual allows for instantaneous switching to Slavery/HR/OR. Also allows cheap temples for early happiness.

Starts with Mining/Wheel, giving workers something to do immediately. The UB is probably the weakest point, only giving +10% Gold, but still valuable. But most important is the UU - a str 4 Archer with an extra FS chance. The only Civ that can mount a various serious Archer (Skirmisher) rush early game. Alternately, the Civ that has one of the best early game defenders (Bowman is better against Axes/Swords, but weaker to Chariots/HA).

Bh

 

[pawelo]

Btw I agree Gilgamesh is a bad leader to start with

Gilgamesh is an awesome leader to start with.
He has Wheel - research to AH and just in time for the first rush with Chariots if lucky. Then BW and Vulture rock. Mix it with a GW & Ziggurats and you have an early game power.

 

[The Rook]

Favorite : Ramses with Stonehedge

Worst :HC

Before you kill me, I am a simple Noble player, but I hate HC. How can a UU rush can be so attractive, when the unit is weaker than a normal swordman ?

Feel free to explain

I don't think anyone would argue that a Quechua is a match for a Swordsman, but they are units of different eras. It would be like comparing a Swordsman to a Maceman. If you are rushing your enemy with Swordsmen, it is doubtful you are really rushing them at all.

 

[The Rook]

Quechuas remain a cost-effective way to fight defending archers for a long long time. You can try to deny your opponents military resources, or to bait defending Axemen with other units (like Swordsmen). Those who claim that Quechuas are good for a very early rush only and have no shelf life don't really use their potential to the fullest imo.

Yes, one advantage of the Quechua, (or any very early resourceless UU) is the sheer harassment potential. If you don't plan on rushing the AI, steal its worker pre-3000BC, and watch it go into an Archer whipping frenzy. Have two or three units guarding the enemy capital, and rex into the space the AI would have claimed. The hapless AI will station its Workers and Settlers in the capital, and religiously spam Archers until it finally discovers construction (a very long time with unimproved tiles). Finally, vassalise/invade at your leisure.