Charlemagne, worst leader around? Or more than meets the eye?

[Adder]

Charlemagne
King of the Franks and Holy roman emperor. The father of Europe and possibly one of the most important people in european history has finally found his way into civilization. But what have they done with him? Is this what a person like Charlemagne deserves?

Protective/Imperialistic
By many considered the worst traits.
Mysticism/Hunting
nothing really exciting, though I'm always fond of a starting scout.
Landsknecht
Good on paper, bad in practise.. they will NOT replace macemen or knights in your attacking force. You will use as many as you would ussually have Pikemen really
Rathaus
The one redeeming factor.. -75% maintainance is huge really.

So what's the deal with Charlemagne? Imperialistic obviously favors rapid expansion, and Protective will give you easy aquired strong defenders.
It seems to me Charlemagne is about setting up a large empire fast and stack it with some defenders then sing it out till 2050 or something.

Did they really make Charlemagne the worst leader there is available? That comes as a bit of a dissapointment to me personally.
Though time victory's are my favourite victories

 

[Angst]

The Rathaus/Imp combo is pretty good actually... As you say, make a huge empire, then keep and maintain it w/ courthouse and protective.

The Pikeman's a defender, not attacker. Made for protection. Still good for the strategy.

 

[DigitalBoy]

I think the idea was he gets a good UU (maybe not a great city raider, but amazing for stack defense, beats macemen) and a great UB in exchange for crummy traits. I'm pretty sure that much is intentional.

Thing is, I still prefer Gilgamesh's unique stuff to Charlemagne's unique stuff (earlier courthouses + combo sword/axe = crazy expansion) and he gets better traits to boot.

 

[sydhe]

I think Brennus is considerably worse. At least, I 've never done well with him.

 

[Powerslave]

Spiritual and Charismatic? Are you crazy? Those are great traits! If you judge Brennus by his UU and/or UB, then, sure, I can see why you'd find him rather unattractive. With traits like that, though, you don't really need a good UU or UB. His traits lend themselves to virtually any play-style, from cultural to warmonger to spacefarer, and seeing that he's Spiritual, it's a cinch to switch between warmonger mode and builder mode.

I can't think of any way to make him better, unless you give him Praetorians or a UB that enhances his economy. Hmmm, Brennus of the English. Now, there's a beast!

 

[Swein Forkbeard]

I've seen some members say that the Landsneckht was their 2nd favorite UU (behind the Praetorian).

They should instead make the Landsneckht have 4 Strength and the Rathaus kill maintenance cost completely. And Charlemagne should have been Phi/Ind.

 

[Diamondeye]

Charlemagne
Protective/Imperialistic
By many considered the worst traits.

I can mention worse, as these traits both hold potential and has synergy - cheap settlers with good protection early on.

Mysticism/Hunting
nothing really exciting, though I'm always fond of a starting scout.

Agree - mediocre starttechs, but not everyone can have MIN/WHE.

Landsknecht
Good on paper, bad in practise.. they will NOT replace macemen or knights in your attacking force. You will use as many as you would ussually have Pikemen really

WHAT? Excuse me, are we talking about the same landsknechts ? They are probably the best UU in BtS. Their only weakness is crossbows - bring a cover HA and you have that covered. They may have lower base strength than maces, but same modified against melee, and higher against cavalry. They also have the very good feature that they come with same tech as trebs. If you can get them before the enemy has macemen with a beeline, you're in a good position, and if you can get them before the enemy gets Feudalism, you're well on your way to a new vassal/empire. These guys are superb attackers and even better defenders...

Rathaus
The one redeeming factor.. -75% maintainance is huge really.

Prob'ly one of the best UBs aswell - all in all, HRE ranks just above Rome IMO.

So what's the deal with Charlemagne? Imperialistic obviously favors rapid expansion, and Protective will give you easy aquired strong defenders.
It seems to me Charlemagne is about setting up a large empire fast and stack it with some defenders then sing it out till 2050 or something.

Did they really make Charlemagne the worst leader there is available? That comes as a bit of a dissapointment to me personally.
Though time victory's are my favourite victories

Obviously, I can't agree with this - as stated above, I find HRE among the best civs there is. And while Imp helps expanding early, landsknechts in medieval, PRO can help expanding once gunpowder rolls around. All in all a very nice civilization.

 

[Mr. Civtastic]

Suryavarman is my vote for worst leader.

 

[MrCynical]

Well the traits are certainly not a strong (or even a decent) combination. I'd consider it a toss up which of Expansive and Protective takes the place of second worst trait. Imperialistic is unfortunately a bad trait at any level. Settlers are only marginally faster due to the bug of the bonus only applying to hammers - early settlers are largely built of food. The great general bonus also has a limited impact. Protective is a trait I hate to see in a neigbouring AI, but only helps to survive, not to win. I rarely bother with city garrison promotions anyway, preferring a more active style of defence.

Starting techs - well Mysticism will get you a religion at low levels, but isn't great at higher levels. I don't like starting with hunting - it's rare I have anything I can improve with a camp near my first city, and a scout can't steal workers.

Charlemagne is spared the position of worst leader by his UU and UB. The Landsknecht is no Praetorian, but certainly allows you to economise a bit on units for medieval warfare. It still needs a hand to shift longbowmen though, and crossbowmen rip them apart. The UB is strong throughout the game though - early on for more rapid expansion, and later on it permits much cheaper use of domestic corporation branches.

So I don't think he's the worst leader. The trait combo is horrible, but both the UU and UB are well above average.

 

[Swein Forkbeard]

Well the traits are certainly not a strong (or even a decent) combination. I'd consider it a toss up which of Expansive and Protective takes the place of second worst trait. Imperialistic is unfortunately a bad trait at any level. Settlers are only marginally faster due to the bug of the bonus only applying to hammers - early settlers are largely built of food. The great general bonus also has a limited impact. Protective is a trait I hate to see in a neigbouring AI, but only helps to survive, not to win. I rarely bother with city garrison promotions anyway, preferring a more active style of defence.

Starting techs - well Mysticism will get you a religion at low levels, but isn't great at higher levels. I don't like starting with hunting - it's rare I have anything I can improve with a camp near my first city, and a scout can't steal workers.

Charlemagne is spared the position of worst leader by his UU and UB. The Landsknecht is no Praetorian, but certainly allows you to economise a bit on units for medieval warfare. It still needs a hand to shift longbowmen though, and crossbowmen rip them apart. The UB is strong throughout the game though - early on for more rapid expansion, and later on it permits much cheaper use of domestic corporation branches.

So I don't think he's the worst leader. The trait combo is horrible, but both the UU and UB are well above average.

And I'm trying to play as Genghis Khan, who I think is much worse than Charlemagne.

 

[Pangur Bán]

Charlemagne
King of the Franks and Holy roman emperor. The father of Europe and possibly one of the most important people in european history

1) He was King of the Franks, and Emperor; there was no such thing as "Holy Roman Emperor" or for that matter "Holy Roman Empire" in Charlemagne's time; this mistake I'm guessing was made by firaxis because of a highly inaccurate history channel documentary about Charlemagne.

2) He is only "Father of Europe" if Europe means "France + Germany"; the Ottomans ruled more of Europe than Charlemagne, and Julius Caesar took over almost the same area of Charlemagne's kingdom in one single campaign.

 

[azzaman333]

Don't make this another thread about the HRE which has nothign to do with the game please.


I wouldn't say Charlie is the worst leader, but definately close to it. Only Qin Shi Huang has worse traits than him IMO, an average at best UU, and one of the better UBs, but it's not enough to make up for his huge deficits elsewhere. Overall I'd have to say Isabella is the worst. She has synergystic starting techs, but she has no UU or UB of any use, and Spi and Exp are strongest with a Philosophical or a Financial, paired together they aren't too good. Followed by Mao then Charlie himself (from the top of my head, I'm probably forgetting 5-10 leaders)

 

[InFlux5]

Settlers are only marginally faster due to the bug of the bonus only applying to hammers - early settlers are largely built of food.

I'm pretty sure this isn't a bug.

 

[Monkeyfinger]

It seems like one of those intentional but ******ed design decisions to me at this point. If it were a bug, it'd have been fixed ages ago.

 

[lutzj]

Two words: Rathaus Landsknecht

Also his flag is cool

 

[Swein Forkbeard]

Don't make this another thread about the HRE which has nothign to do with the game please.


I wouldn't say Charlie is the worst leader, but definately close to it. Only Qin Shi Huang has worse traits than him IMO, an average at best UU, and one of the better UBs, but it's not enough to make up for his huge deficits elsewhere. Overall I'd have to say Isabella is the worst. She has synergystic starting techs, but she has no UU or UB of any use, and Spi and Exp are strongest with a Philosophical or a Financial, paired together they aren't too good. Followed by Mao then Charlie himself (from the top of my head, I'm probably forgetting 5-10 leaders)

You forgot Saladin...

 

[kniteowl]

Their only weakness is crossbows - bring a cover HA and you have that covered.

If you're talking about Horse Archers then you should know all mounted units can not get the Cover Promotion.

On Topic, I generally go for the Stonehenge and Oracle to COLs, so when I'm expanding quickly I don't have to waste any hammers on Monuments and don't have to wait extra turns to work my Fat Cross and I also like to chop my UB. It might be even a good decision to beeline to Maths, those courthouses are expensive without the Organized trait.

Cheap Settlers, Protective Defenders and -75% Maintenance from UB has pretty nice synergy to me and I think he's the only Protective leader that starts with Hunting so Archery 1st or 2nd after religion is a nice option.

the later game is pretty much a breeze with a nice UU and save a couple of Great People for Cheap Corps Late Game.

 

[Adder]

1) He was King of the Franks, and Emperor; there was no such thing as "Holy Roman Emperor" or for that matter "Holy Roman Empire" in Charlemagne's time; this mistake I'm guessing was made by firaxis because of a highly inaccurate history channel documentary about Charlemagne.

25 december 800
Pope Leo III crowns Charlemagne as Roman emperor. While the exact title wasnt "Holy roman emperor" it was basicly the same.

"To Carolus Augustus crowned by God, mighty and pacific emperor, be life and victory"

"The coronation was the foundation of the Holy Roman Empire. Though Charlemagne did not use the title, he is considered the first Holy Roman emperor"

2) He is only "Father of Europe" if Europe means "France + Germany"; the Ottomans ruled more of Europe than Charlemagne, and Julius Caesar took over almost the same area of Charlemagne's kingdom in one single campaign.

And Italy. Charlemagne's empire split in three parst forming largely the modern states of France, Germany and Italy. Arguably the most important states of main-land Europe.

 

[Pangur Bán]

25 december 800
Pope Leo III crowns Charlemagne as Roman emperor. While the exact title wasnt "Holy roman emperor" it was basicly the same.

"To Carolus Augustus crowned by God, mighty and pacific emperor, be life and victory"

"The coronation was the foundation of the Holy Roman Empire. Though Charlemagne did not use the title, he is considered the first Holy Roman emperor"
.

The Holy Roman Empire is a completely different state which started in the 10th century. Carol the Great was indeed made Emperor [of the Romans], as I already said, but the Holy Roman Empire is a completely different state. Carol's territory was no more the Holy Roman Empire than the territory of Emperor Lambert II of Spoleto or Emperor Louis the Blind. The HRE is the Kingdom of Germany whose ruler used the imperial title originally revived for Charlemagne, but that is pretty much all that links those two very distinct states. It's simply factually inaccurate to confuse them, as Civ4 embarrassingly did.

And Italy. Charlemagne's empire split in three parst forming largely the modern states of France, Germany and Italy. Arguably the most important states of main-land Europe.

You got it the wrong way around; Francia and [north] "Italy" already existed before Charlemagne, which Charlemagne then acquired; in terms of new political creations, Charlemagne did little more than conquer some pagan Saxons. His conquests severed the Saxons from the Jutes, so if anything he was father of Germany.

Continental Europeans who live in France, Germany and the Low Countries do have a habit of thinking they are the centre of the universe, esp. the French speaking half; this has been ably mocked by the English comedy show Yes Prime Minister, which had an episode about the "Napoleon Prize", an EU award for "the person who has done the most to unite Europe since Napoleon ... that is ... if you don't count Hitler" [or Stalin].

To clear it up, it is a parody of the narrow-minded Charlemagne Prize.

I'm not sure what effect Charlemagne had on places like Poland, Russia, Bulgaria, Portugal, Sweden, Ireland, Romania, Greece, etc. Even if we adopted the French definition of Europe ... i.e. France+Beligum ... he still wasn't father of that as the kingdom he inherited pretty much included all of that area already.

Of the greatest states in 800AD in "Europe" (which means all the land north of the Mediterranean and Black Sea from the Atlantic to the Urals, not from Biscay to the Elbe ), Charlemagne's Frankish kingdom was prolly third to the Caliphate and the Roman Empire. At any rate, I can't work out how he can possibly be called "the father of Europe".

 

[Party]

He's not the best but he's also not the worst.
I've played as him a couple of times, no real complaints.