Mec AntiKythera
King
- Joined
- Sep 24, 2010
- Messages
- 980
Best Civilizations for play styles
- Thread starter TheHacker
- Start date
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2008
- Messages
- 27,134
Not saying Joao is top tier by any means, but I disagree with Fleme(who I often agree with) that he is bottom tier. I think he is underrated despite his less than flexible UU/UB. While IMP is generally not considered very good on its own, I think it works quite well with EXP, which is a great trait. When you think about it and in terms of the OPs question, Joao is probably the most flexible leader in the game. He can adapt to any situation/map or play style really (unless you consider rexxing a playstyle). Joao is about grabbing the land and resources and making it work for you later which I think can work for just about any style except maybe the early rusher, but at least he starts with mining and will have lots of workers to chop out axe.
Fleme
Obey the Kitty!
- Joined
- Oct 15, 2003
- Messages
- 1,205
I like both the traits but somehow he has too much focus on expansion and that is all he has riding for him. He makes for an excellent AI because that way the huge expanse of land he grabs goes to good use but as a human I find him lacking. My predisposition may have to do with the fact that back when me and Silu played Co-op we always ended up against Joao + friend (Shaka was the usual suspect) and a 20~ some city Joao boosting a wardog isn't that much fun to play against on Deity.
Well, on the actual topic of playing him, the uniques, as mentioned, are both at the bottom tier. While the traits do have some merit to them, there's just no "wow" factor about Joao that would make me want to play him or go back to him once I've played him. And since we're disagreeing here, I can't really agree on him being "the most flexible" as I could name pretty much any situation where I'd prefer another leader over him. There's no need to make this into a topic about personal tastes on leaders; I'm merely suggesting that we all have our favorites and pariahs and that you can't really say there's a single best answer to a specific situation.
Heck, I used to hate to play as Burger King because I never got any use out of the Landsknecht nor the Pro trait (save for some late game drill~) but for a compulsive rexer, Imp and Rathaus are unbeatable; When you manage to Oracle CoL he's just candy and can't go bankrupt. As far as I know, people still consider him bottom tier.
For me the bottom tier is (in no specific order): Mao, Joao, Stalin, Saladin, SB which can all be summarized as having poor internal synergy save for SB whos traits/uniques are way too turtly for my liking and maybe Joao whos too expansion oriented with poor uniques. I don't like Hammurabi either, and that's also because of his uniques. He should make a switch with Gilgamesh next door and both nations would be better off
Well, on the actual topic of playing him, the uniques, as mentioned, are both at the bottom tier. While the traits do have some merit to them, there's just no "wow" factor about Joao that would make me want to play him or go back to him once I've played him. And since we're disagreeing here, I can't really agree on him being "the most flexible" as I could name pretty much any situation where I'd prefer another leader over him. There's no need to make this into a topic about personal tastes on leaders; I'm merely suggesting that we all have our favorites and pariahs and that you can't really say there's a single best answer to a specific situation.
Heck, I used to hate to play as Burger King because I never got any use out of the Landsknecht nor the Pro trait (save for some late game drill~) but for a compulsive rexer, Imp and Rathaus are unbeatable; When you manage to Oracle CoL he's just candy and can't go bankrupt. As far as I know, people still consider him bottom tier.
For me the bottom tier is (in no specific order): Mao, Joao, Stalin, Saladin, SB which can all be summarized as having poor internal synergy save for SB whos traits/uniques are way too turtly for my liking and maybe Joao whos too expansion oriented with poor uniques. I don't like Hammurabi either, and that's also because of his uniques. He should make a switch with Gilgamesh next door and both nations would be better off
I agree. You generally don't need that much of a hammer discount on horizontal expansion. On anything below Deity, your finances are likely to limit your expansion rather than your ultimate production capability.Changing one of Joao's traits for FIN or ORG would allow better balance, and all of those leaders (Julius Caesar, Victoria, Pacal, Mehmed) have better uniques as well.
Pure focus on economy works, but extremes like Joao, Tokugawa or Boudica are generally lacking.
Personally I believe you can't beat economy-focused traits backed up by an early rush-capable UU, bonus points for being resourceless. Huayna Capac is excellent at just about any opening and in many players' opinion the strongest leader overall. The number 2 spot is hotly contested - Mansa Musa, either Caesar, Ramesses and Darius can all wage devastating early wars or build up peacefully with the best of them.
Generally speaking, the traits lock you less into a specific playstyle than you may think - you need to criminally neglect GPP to make PHI weak, IND is perfectly adequate when just used for failure cash etc.
Still, I'll try:
Mansa Musa, British queens: forget production, rushbuy everything.
Churchill: Total war from the Renaissance on... his Redcoats can deal with Infantry and the game shouldn't progress to anything more advanced.
Peter: Specialist focus throughout the game.
Ramesses: Holy cheese win with an early Apostolic Palace, lightbulb towards Theology.
Shaka, Charlie: Corporation madness.
Joao: Extreme colonisation if the map allows.
Pure focus on economy works, but extremes like Joao, Tokugawa or Boudica are generally lacking.
Personally I believe you can't beat economy-focused traits backed up by an early rush-capable UU, bonus points for being resourceless. Huayna Capac is excellent at just about any opening and in many players' opinion the strongest leader overall. The number 2 spot is hotly contested - Mansa Musa, either Caesar, Ramesses and Darius can all wage devastating early wars or build up peacefully with the best of them.
Generally speaking, the traits lock you less into a specific playstyle than you may think - you need to criminally neglect GPP to make PHI weak, IND is perfectly adequate when just used for failure cash etc.
Still, I'll try:
Mansa Musa, British queens: forget production, rushbuy everything.
Churchill: Total war from the Renaissance on... his Redcoats can deal with Infantry and the game shouldn't progress to anything more advanced.
Peter: Specialist focus throughout the game.
Ramesses: Holy cheese win with an early Apostolic Palace, lightbulb towards Theology.
Shaka, Charlie: Corporation madness.
Joao: Extreme colonisation if the map allows.
