Best Civilizations for play styles
- Thread starter TheHacker
- Start date
Zx Zero Zx
Deity
You need to be a bit more specific, like human hands or AI.
Zx Zero Zx
Deity
Then it all depends on play style preference. There is no one best leader in the game. There are better leader tiers but there is no god tier that the leaders in that are so overpowered that no others stand a chance. There are Civs with really good UUs that get played more.
Mec AntiKythera
King
- Joined
- Sep 24, 2010
- Messages
- 980
Are you looking for a breakdown of the best leaders for different styles, if so what styles do you have in mind?, or are you looking for the best leaders that can be used with all possible styles of playing?
shyuhe
Deity
For single player monarch+ games, Huayna Capac. For anything under monarch, I'd recommend Hatty, Darius, or Cyrus. Basically these leaders have very powerful early unique units that run over the AI early, letting you seal the game by 1 AD. Other universally strong leaders are both of the Indians (again excellent UU) and Elizabeth (good traits). These leaders will pretty much work for any strategy.
Noogai
Still Just a Settler
I recommend you to choose random, makes you a flexible player.
Framesticker
Prince
Play random!
Zx Zero Zx
Deity
Lawls. Joao has excellent trait combos, just bad UU and UB. Not everything is based around the UU and UB ya know.
My playstyle doesn't really change based on the leader. Sure, there are small twaeks that are made, but it more controlled by what is generated on the map.
I can play Joao on a Great Plains map just as well as I can play another leader.
To me, the leader traits, UU, and UB must make some issues easier.
plasmacannon
Emperor
Geesh, guys after 10 posts you couldn't come up with a simple list for the Chieftain?
Early Rush: Inca, Persia (either leader), Egypt (either leader), Sumeria, Romans.
Teching: any FIN leader, but, Elizabeth, William van Oranje, Mansa Musa do very well.
Mid game attacks: England, Russia. Both havd good UUs for that time.
Cultural Victories: Ramesses, Louis, Pericles, Saladin. We had a topic on this one.
I hope that helps.
Early Rush: Inca, Persia (either leader), Egypt (either leader), Sumeria, Romans.
Teching: any FIN leader, but, Elizabeth, William van Oranje, Mansa Musa do very well.
Mid game attacks: England, Russia. Both havd good UUs for that time.
Cultural Victories: Ramesses, Louis, Pericles, Saladin. We had a topic on this one.
I hope that helps.
Ghpstage
Deity
Apart from Agg and Pro I don't see too great a difference between the rest of the traits, certainly not enough to call a leader with 2 decent traits 'bad'. Plus this is a case of the whole being more than the sum of its parts, cheap Granaries and Workers go a long way in supporting the high expansion rate Imperialistic can allow for. They work very well together.
Zx Zero Zx
Deity
How long have you been playing? IMP and EXP are some of the best traits in the game. Joao having both means he REXs extremely well you just need to be selective about city sites so you don't go broke. There is no way IND should be in your top 4 it is not even close to the level of ORG or CRT, nor is CHA.
Fleme
Obey the Kitty!
- Joined
- Oct 15, 2003
- Messages
- 1,205
Just face it, Joao is miserable any way you look at it. He's bottom tier in any comparison so there's no need to stand up for that leader. It's like defending Stalin or Mao.
That said, there's no "best" anything at anything other than on paper. Theory is one thing but the maps usually play out in a way that you can't plan ahead in the sense that you could pick a leader just for one purpose and play a game without any consideration to your surroundings.
You could say that leaders like JC lend themselves to warfare which he obviously does, but that is more because of his Praetorian rather than the traits. Sure, Imp and Org do synergize well with the kind of conquest but any leader would be a good early warmonger with Praetorians.
You can look at Gandhi as someone who's ideal for culture wins and he is but if you take a good look at him, he's actually a very adept warmonger in human hands. Spiritual is good for warring, Phi makes for slingshots and these can be leveraged.
Examples like this are as many as there are leaders and you definitely shouldn't look for "the best" but if you're adamant about it, play JC, Darius, HC; They all lend themselves to everything and are good at it to boot. Still, it is best to play Random and find out what you prefer.
HC and Darius are fun for a few times but at least I found my fancies elsewhere after having played with every leader for n times. I've come to like leaders like Charlemagne and Napoleon; Mehmed remains a strong contender and I won't say no to a vast majority of leaders actually - except for the very bottom tier. Just find your own way and your own "best" leader.
That said, there's no "best" anything at anything other than on paper. Theory is one thing but the maps usually play out in a way that you can't plan ahead in the sense that you could pick a leader just for one purpose and play a game without any consideration to your surroundings.
You could say that leaders like JC lend themselves to warfare which he obviously does, but that is more because of his Praetorian rather than the traits. Sure, Imp and Org do synergize well with the kind of conquest but any leader would be a good early warmonger with Praetorians.
You can look at Gandhi as someone who's ideal for culture wins and he is but if you take a good look at him, he's actually a very adept warmonger in human hands. Spiritual is good for warring, Phi makes for slingshots and these can be leveraged.
Examples like this are as many as there are leaders and you definitely shouldn't look for "the best" but if you're adamant about it, play JC, Darius, HC; They all lend themselves to everything and are good at it to boot. Still, it is best to play Random and find out what you prefer.
HC and Darius are fun for a few times but at least I found my fancies elsewhere after having played with every leader for n times. I've come to like leaders like Charlemagne and Napoleon; Mehmed remains a strong contender and I won't say no to a vast majority of leaders actually - except for the very bottom tier. Just find your own way and your own "best" leader.
Zx Zero Zx
Deity
It's true that he is a lot better in AI hands, but he's not the worst.
plasmacannon
Emperor
Wait? Stalin is bad?
The Only AGG leader to start with mining for an early axemen rush, and can build forges twice as fast, and if he starts on a solo continent, he is flexible enough to just go wonder building, until Industrial age and go warmongering with Cossacks?
That poor bad Stalin?
I won't turn this into a long defense of him. I don't consider him a horrible leader choice in human hands.
The Only AGG leader to start with mining for an early axemen rush, and can build forges twice as fast, and if he starts on a solo continent, he is flexible enough to just go wonder building, until Industrial age and go warmongering with Cossacks?
That poor bad Stalin?
I won't turn this into a long defense of him. I don't consider him a horrible leader choice in human hands.
TheMeInTeam
If A implies B...
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2008
- Messages
- 27,995
Joao's traits are fine IMO, and put him pretty average in that aspect. The problem is his generally awful uniques. Switch into something like Joao of Inca and he'd look leagues better.
EXP is top tier. 1 pop whip granaries and cheap workers? Please and thank you.
