Best Leader?

[Spoonwood]

okay, i meant which trait combination is best for your playstyle.

My playstyle, along with many others around here I supsect, *varies* with desired victory condition, amount of food and production available in your core, number of opponents, traits of tribe, difficultly level, etc. Quality of gameplay generally increases when you vary playstyle with desired victory conditon and all the other factors involved in a game. I'll say this...

For a desireable HoF start with appropriate conditons on standard Demi-god and Deity maps I'd say I favor

20k: Portugal (I get a free settler or town). Carthage (if I ever muster the patience to SGL fish on Ceremonial Burial, and have ivory nearby). The Byzantines. Then other seafaring tribes.

Diplomatic or Space: Sumeria. Then Korea. Then the Ottomans... but maybe the Ottomans if I decided to SGL fish... but I don't usually look for 2 cow starts like that. Then other scientific tribes.

100K: The Celts, Sumeria, or Babylon.

Domination: The Iroquois.

Conquest: China.

Histographic: The Maya. If I played in Vanilla, then the Americans here.

 

[TheOverseer714]

I've never done very well with Japan, for me it's Agricultural and Industrious, with Scientific and Commercial as my 3rd and 4th favored traits. I'll do fine with any tribe with any of those traits. If they have two of them......I'm in heaven.

 

[TKG]

I happen to liek the french for a few reasons, firstly their traits make it easier to make a larger empire (worker speed in particular). And their special unit is no slouch in the combat effectiveness catergory even into the age when you get rifleman.

 

[Crowqueen]

I find it difficult to make any headway with any civilization whose unique unit becomes obsolete too soon.

If this was a Civ IV forum I would be able to distinguish between the leader and the Civ but it's harder in this game to separate the two - I'm still trying to play as every civ and win in order to progress to the next level because I enjoy seeing how they work and play out, but had a few frustrating games as the Aztecs and Maya (shame, I love the javelin thrower!) before giving up and playing Russia, which had a unit nicely timed for when the game goes ballistic. Jaguars are superb because of the two-point movement but they are too weak to make any headway and archers are much better. However that is not a discussion of the leader traits so much as the civ.

If it is traits we are talking about expansionist civs are fun because of the extra boost given during the first part of the game and the Inca scout is even a warrior as well.

The best leader from an aesthetic point of view is Gilgamesh because ... well, you just have to read my sig to find out why ... but I have yet to play him properly in my all-leader scoreboard and win with him, so I'm not sure I'd call him the best from the point of view of anything mechanical.

 

[TKG]

The trick with the early special unit civs is to apply them as soon as you get them. the Inca and aztec for instaznce have what amounts to a nearly first turn unit with a signifigant movement advantage over anything of the time. use it to take down opposing civs before they can build anything.

 

[TheOverseer714]

If you play with a tribe that has a super-early UU, you need to decide on your GA. Use them and get an early despotic GA, don't use them and they aren't a factor. For the Aztecs, the Jaguar warrior is a great scout who can survive barbarians, as is the Incan Chasqui. The Sumerian Enkidu isn't as good at scouting but makes a very good, cheap defender and settler escort. With the Agricultural trait and cheap settler escorts, the Sumerians are flat-out the best ReXing of all, you can spread like the plague with them.

 

[Spoonwood]

With the Agricultural trait and cheap settler escorts, the Sumerians are flat-out the best ReXing of all, you can spread like the plague with them.

If you need those enkidu escorts sure. But, if you don't need early defenders... the Maya can really outrex them.

 

[TheOverseer714]

If you have barbarians on raging, which seems the norm in the Xotms, Enkidus are good. The Maya are another early UU, but JTs require a tech that takes away from the republic sling. You might not build JTs until you are willing to trade Alphabet away, meanwhile your settlers are naked or guarded by warriors that are easily beaten by barb horses at Emperor or above.

 

[Ethan Moreau]

I really like the Babylonians. Free tech, and no anarchy. It really depends on the victory conditions, I suppose. I like the Chinese for conquest, for sure.

 

[Aegis]

If you were wondering which civs were the best to play against, I enjoy playing against Sumeria, Maya, France, Iroqois and India because they usually have large empires that warmonger well and are high up in the tech pace.

 

[LateISuuri]

I think Bismarck

 

[Boss Tweed]

I wasn't 100% sure where you were gettin' at, so I made a 2 lists

Favorite Leaders:

1. Lincoln
2. Bismarck
3. Caesar

Coolest Looking Leaderheads:

1. Bismarck - Industrial
2. Alexander - Ancient
3. Theodora - Medieval
4. Hiawatha - Ancient
5. Lincoln - Industrial

 

[Gamemaster77]

how could one be better than the other?

 

[Boss Tweed]

how could one be better than the other?

I think he's going mostly for personal opinion of those leaders. Or how you would rate there performance in game (on average)

 

[FrozenTitan]

I enjoy using Japan/China. I seem to work well with them, and I like both of their UU's.