Best and Worse Leader's to start a game

[madscientist]

Regarding Musa, yes he has great starting techs. The thing is he is an annoying tech-whore as the AI so noone ever mentions him in a positive light on that principal

CivCorpse: Reagrding Rome, you are correct about the dominance of the Prats. Iron comes a little later, the UB is outside the window I am discussing, Imperialistic is a weaker trait. Industrious is useful for Agustus but ORG (who you know I love) is a non-issue that early in the game (just like Philosophical). They start with fishing and Mining (I think) so that is fine providong they have a seashore.Are the Prats overpowered? Hell, yeah and that's the way it should be. Some Civ has to have the best UU and only fitting the Romans do!

So I would say the Romans are very good, but not as good as HC.

Aftyer reading all the responses and thinking about it, here are my favorite/worse leaders to start a game 1000BC-1 AD

Best:
HC
Hannibal (providing coast is available)
Musa (I never said that!)
Willem

Worse:
Chuck (noone has convinced me otherwise)
Sal (although he jumps dramatically if he can pop a food tech from a hut)

 

[Diamondeye]

Best:
HC
Hannibal (providing coast is available)
Musa (I never said that!)
Willem

Worse:
Chuck (noone has convinced me otherwise)
Sal (although he jumps dramatically if he can pop a food tech from a hut)

Might I ask: Who is Chuck? Charlemagne?

 

[madscientist]

Might I ask: Who is Chuck? Charlemagne?

yep. Alot call him Charles the Great. Sounds alot like Charlie Brown, and peppermeint Patties used to call him Chuck!

 

[Halt]

Just got a 1525AD Diplomatic victory with Charlemange "Chuck".

I played him because of this post... I focused on his UU/UB, his historical Mythos, making the most out of Protective and Imperialistic... etc.. Changing the style of my play.

While I agree he seems weak on paper and if I played my normal style of play racing to liberism etc.. I would have lost... I wonder how much of his or any leaders weakness is square peg in a round hole (yes he is weaker than Fin/Ind/Phi etc...).

 

[fugazi]

I love Shaka. Barracks that make expanding easier while you're just expanding at first to hook up copper, iron and other valuable resources? Win!

While I can't help but love the guy I'm more and more starting to dislike the early game that Frederick has to offer. With mining and hunting, you'd think he'd be good but I always get crappy starting positions for some God forsaken reason but once you start rolling though .. it's the same as with Willem van Oranje - expand, build a library, assign scientists after growing to 4, move on. Squeeze in a few production cities and let those scientists research and lightbulb your precious techs. I can easily let my production focus heavily on troops with him while pouring out units. Ohhhh and when you get manufacturing plants .. I'm in love!

 

[The Rook]

I'm still not really sure what best/worst "early game" leader actually means. Isn't the strength of a leader measured by their ability to win? Few games are completed in the ancient age, so the only way I consider of measuring their effectiveness is by their results over the whole game. Is the leader effective at winning? If one leader is clearly more effective than another in a variety of situations, then that leader has a better early/mid/end game, irrespective of when their strengths kick in. If Liz wins with greater frequency than Gilgamesh, then more of her early games are reaching successful conclusions, hence she is the better early game leader.

Any thoughts?

 

[madscientist]

Early game I mean best chances to build and maintain several very good cities, say 5-6 buy 1AD, as well as being able to defend them as well as have a good economy at that point. We all getting a good start is important, I thought it would be nice to get some input as to which are the best and worse.

The reason, well when the random leader generator spits out one I have an idea of how close and micromanagemental I need to be.

 

[Silence101]

I'm still not really sure what best/worst "early game" leader actually means. Isn't the strength of a leader measured by their ability to win? Few games are completed in the ancient age, so the only way I consider of measuring their effectiveness is by their results over the whole game. Is the leader effective at winning? If one leader is clearly more effective than another in a variety of situations, then that leader has a better early/mid/end game, irrespective of when their strengths kick in. If Liz wins with greater frequency than Gilgamesh, then more of her early games are reaching successful conclusions, hence she is the better early game leader.

Any thoughts?

Actions in the early game, successes, failures, have an exponential impact on the rest of the game.

 

[Artichoker]

Early game I mean best chances to build and maintain several very good cities, say 5-6 buy 1AD, as well as being able to defend them as well as have a good economy at that point. We all getting a good start is important, I thought it would be nice to get some input as to which are the best and worse.

The reason, well when the random leader generator spits out one I have an idea of how close and micromanagemental I need to be.

I would say Aggressive and Creative are the best early game traits to have.

Aggressive because it applies to so many units at such an early stage, when compared to Protective, which is more focused on units further down the tech tree.

Creative is great because it eliminates the need of building Monuments, which become obsolete very soon anyway, but are still essential for non-creative leaders. The cheap libraries really help in getting an early tech advantage.

Kublai Khan has exactly these 2 traits, and he is great for both military and expansion. I'm not too happy with the UU and UB, however.

As far as UU, if you want early growth--there's just so many to choose from that I haven't tried all of them. However, if you're talking early era, the Egyptian War Chariot looks very good with its improved stats. The Roman Praetorian is also very good, although a bit further down the tech tree.

For UB, I think the special granary (I forgot which one that is) looks good, because city growth is essential in the early stages.

 

[semirami]

Best:

Shaka should be in the list. Invaluable early and cheap UB+ the aggresive trait, unlocks whatever promotions you need for your fast UU. His Mobility promotion is also invaluable, you move fast and attack immediately and your opponent doesnt have time to whip deffenders, not to mention -20% maintenance, also invaluable early in the game. The Expansive trait is not that great, but is still useful(cheap workers and granaries). Good starting techs. Hunting, for more huts/exploaration/Archery and prereq for the UU, Agriculture for early food. Both for cheap AH.

For similar reasons, I will add the both Persians. I also agree for HC, Mansa and Hanibal.

Worst:

No competition here. Sal and Charlie. The only advantage, they have is the early religion, not a option above Prince.

 

[Starch]

My strategy in the beginning is to research Hunting, then build a scout or 2.

 

[The Rook]

Actions in the early game, successes, failures, have an exponential impact on the rest of the game.

I understand that. I wrote at length earlier why I considered HC to be a "powerful early game leader", but I think that could be abbreviated to "powerful leader". Are there any instances of leaders with good early games, who happen to be below average on the whole? Surely not, that wouldn't make sense. If a leader's early game isn't adequate to convert into a win later on, then their early game and their whole game would be weak.

I'll try an example. In Chess, the strength of openings are largely measured by the win/lose/draw percentages. I don't know of any circumstances where an opening was considered very good, but the percentages were considered very poor. After all, you can only view the strength of an opening in relation to its likely conclusion. Why is this different in cIV? Perhaps Gilgamesh may come out of the traps a bit quicker than Liz, but if his "opening" leads to less positive results than Liz's, then surely his early game is weaker?

 

[The Rook]

Early game I mean best chances to build and maintain several very good cities, say 5-6 buy 1AD, as well as being able to defend them as well as have a good economy at that point. We all getting a good start is important, I thought it would be nice to get some input as to which are the best and worse.

Thanks.

Would it be fair of me to summarise that as the best/worst rexer/rusher?

 

[madscientist]

Thanks.

Would it be fair of me to summarise that as the best/worst rexer/rusher?

Yeah that would work. One other possibility which is why I put HC at the top, the realistic option to wonder spam or found an early religion. That is where Hannibal and Will fall short.

What ever style you play, or whatever the map dictates HC seams to be one of the top choices to me.

 

[The Rook]

Yeah that would work. One other possibility which is why I put HC at the top, the realistic option to wonder spam or found an early religion. That is where Hannibal and Will fall short.

Yes, the reason I left out wonderspam, was that normally it seems to yield smaller, less impressive appearing empires in the early game . But I agree with you, HC is awesome. If I had to win a game to save my life, and I didn't know what I would be facing, I'd pick Incas every time.

 

[Silence101]

I understand that. I wrote at length earlier why I considered HC to be a "powerful early game leader", but I think that could be abbreviated to "powerful leader". Are there any instances of leaders with good early games, who happen to be below average on the whole? Surely not, that wouldn't make sense. If a leader's early game isn't adequate to convert into a win later on, then their early game and their whole game would be weak.

I'll try an example. In Chess, the strength of openings are largely measured by the win/lose/draw percentages. I don't know of any circumstances where an opening was considered very good, but the percentages were considered very poor. After all, you can only view the strength of an opening in relation to its likely conclusion. Why is this different in cIV? Perhaps Gilgamesh may come out of the traps a bit quicker than Liz, but if his "opening" leads to less positive results than Liz's, then surely his early game is weaker?

So, it looks like we're in agreement then. I think you're getting caught up on the phrase 'best early game leader' - as if it should read 'best leader' instead. I believe the OP made that distinction in order to get feedback specifically with the early game in mind. Writing "who is the best and worst leader" opens up the post to a wider range of perspectives on what makes a good and a bad leader, which wasn't what the OP was looking for. My arguement would remain the same, though - the best leaders are those who cosistantly perform well in the early game.

 

[The Rook]

So, it looks like we're in agreement then. I think you're getting caught up on the phrase 'best early game leader' - as if it should read 'best leader' instead. I believe the OP made that distinction in order to get feedback specifically with the early game in mind. Writing "who is the best and worst leader" opens up the post to a wider range of perspectives on what makes a good and a bad leader, which wasn't what the OP was looking for. My arguement would remain the same, though - the best leaders are those who cosistantly perform well in the early game.

Well my current line of thinking is that there is no such thing as a good early game leader. A good leader is effective, it doesn't matter how their empire appears at any particular phase of the game. If they are winning, it is proof that their opening, middle and end game are effective. Like you I gravitate towards leaders with benefits that can be realised early, because I can't think of any time I have established a strong position early and lost... without blundering the game away.

 

[Hereditary Rule]

Post bts, brennus too, since charismatic is way less powerful then warlords.

Why is charasmatic weaker in BTS? If anything, it seems more powerful now that monuments don't obsolete until astronomy.

Also, when talking axe rushes, I always feel obliged to bring up the fact that Portugal can get copper hooked up faster than any other civ (if it's not in the capital fat cross) due to the faster workers and faster settlers.

 

[Quotey]

A good leader in the early game that becomes middle of the pack later? Gilgamesh is the very best example, this includes Sumeria.

 

[SnowlyWhite]

I didn't rank mansa because I understood you want early good leaders... mansa doesn't necesarry shine early. He just... shines all the time. Same for hanibal.

Mansa's uu can't attack early, so he doesn't have any advantage early on. Also, doesn't defend better either. I mean, ok, it does, but really... any fortified archer will kill the barbarian archer anyway, so who cares. Best advantage I could come up with for mansa early is the fact you don't lose 2 turns on marathon for switching to slavery... hardly shinny compared to a cheaper courthouse available on priesthood or with a warrior which can take cities on emperor/immortal since the ai starts with archers and not warriors...

Same for hanibal. Excellent, the ub I still rank in a personal top 3, still pretty good traits(charismatic, now with the modifications that make you start with same default happiness on all lvls. doesn't inspire me so much since well... in warlords a non capitol city without charismatic had 3 pop cap without anything, with charismatic and monument had 5... quite a 66% more pop cap - not anymore). But again, I don't feel like he's a very good starter.