rosynelson
Chieftain
- Joined
- Aug 11, 2007
- Messages
- 40
Hi,
I just installed Beyond the Sword, who is the best Leader to play?
Thank you,
Rosy
I just installed Beyond the Sword, who is the best Leader to play?
Thank you,
Rosy
Civ 4 BTS Who is the best Leader to play?
- Thread starter rosynelson
- Start date
Bandobras Took
Emperor
It depends on your play style.
Generally, if you like to beat the tar out of your opponent, choose a war trait -- one that gives free promotions to units or Charismatic. If you like to build big cities/empires/work the land, Imperialistic/Expansive/Creative/Organized. If you like wonders, Industrious. If you like rapid technology, Philosophical/Financial, depending whether you like specialists or cottages.
Those are the general divisions. There are finer point to each. Personally, when starting out, I chose Roosevelt because I like Wonders and loves many of the high-upkeep civics (Bureaucracy, Organized Religion, etc.)
All leaders are viable. Just choose one you think you'll have fun with and learn to play them.
Generally, if you like to beat the tar out of your opponent, choose a war trait -- one that gives free promotions to units or Charismatic. If you like to build big cities/empires/work the land, Imperialistic/Expansive/Creative/Organized. If you like wonders, Industrious. If you like rapid technology, Philosophical/Financial, depending whether you like specialists or cottages.
Those are the general divisions. There are finer point to each. Personally, when starting out, I chose Roosevelt because I like Wonders and loves many of the high-upkeep civics (Bureaucracy, Organized Religion, etc.)
All leaders are viable. Just choose one you think you'll have fun with and learn to play them.
Bigfoot3814
Deity
It can be very hard to decide, especially your first game. Maybe you should just go random and see what happens!
Everybody here is doing the right thing by giving you the principles and letting you decide for yourself.
I'm going to do the WRONG thing and give you a couple of my favorite people specifically.
For warfare, I just LOVE charismatic. I'm not sure how familiar you are with the game, but promotions can do incredible things for your units. Promotions come after a certain amount of experience (1 pt experience roughly equal to 1 battle win). Charismatic drops the promotion requirement down by 25%!! That's huge because the later promotions (which are the ones I want most) are more expensive than early promotions.
For a specific Charismatic leader, I recommend Bodica who is Aggressive (units get free promotion "combat I") and charismatic. when I play with her, I can *really* get into the combat game. Look up her unique unit and unique building, because the unique unit has a special promotion, and the unique building provides another promotion to all units built in a city with it.
I have never had more fun at war than with her.
Now the financial trait is also really cool. It gives an extra commerce on any tile that has two. Commerce is what drives your research and gold production (unless you use a lot of specialists... but I still struggle with the SE (specialist economy) so I think "financial" is great. If you do have the financial trait, look to use river tiles. They already provide 1 commerce, and as soon as you put down a cottage, it provides 1 commerce.... BAM -> 2 commerce + 1 = 3. Start using your trait to your advantage ASAP.
Just yesterday I won playing with Hannibal who is charismatic AND financial. Still, if you're going to play a war game, I would still recommend Bodica over Hannibal.
For a non-war game, I have enjoyed playing William van Orange who is Creative and Financial. The unique building is a Levee which is great for production. I won a creative with this guy, and LOVED it.
I can also recommend playing the British. Two of the leaders are financial. They have a unique building "the stock exchange"... who-yeah! That's a real winner (look up in the Civilopedia for details). And while there is some debate over the power of the Redcoat unique unit, I think it totally rocks (red coats + cavalry for the win!!!)
If, by the way, you're an experienced Civ IV player, I apologize for the over-explaining.
Hope you have lots of fun!!!
I'm going to do the WRONG thing and give you a couple of my favorite people specifically.
For warfare, I just LOVE charismatic. I'm not sure how familiar you are with the game, but promotions can do incredible things for your units. Promotions come after a certain amount of experience (1 pt experience roughly equal to 1 battle win). Charismatic drops the promotion requirement down by 25%!! That's huge because the later promotions (which are the ones I want most) are more expensive than early promotions.
For a specific Charismatic leader, I recommend Bodica who is Aggressive (units get free promotion "combat I") and charismatic. when I play with her, I can *really* get into the combat game. Look up her unique unit and unique building, because the unique unit has a special promotion, and the unique building provides another promotion to all units built in a city with it.
I have never had more fun at war than with her.
Now the financial trait is also really cool. It gives an extra commerce on any tile that has two. Commerce is what drives your research and gold production (unless you use a lot of specialists... but I still struggle with the SE (specialist economy) so I think "financial" is great. If you do have the financial trait, look to use river tiles. They already provide 1 commerce, and as soon as you put down a cottage, it provides 1 commerce.... BAM -> 2 commerce + 1 = 3. Start using your trait to your advantage ASAP.
Just yesterday I won playing with Hannibal who is charismatic AND financial. Still, if you're going to play a war game, I would still recommend Bodica over Hannibal.
For a non-war game, I have enjoyed playing William van Orange who is Creative and Financial. The unique building is a Levee which is great for production. I won a creative with this guy, and LOVED it.
I can also recommend playing the British. Two of the leaders are financial. They have a unique building "the stock exchange"... who-yeah! That's a real winner (look up in the Civilopedia for details). And while there is some debate over the power of the Redcoat unique unit, I think it totally rocks (red coats + cavalry for the win!!!)
If, by the way, you're an experienced Civ IV player, I apologize for the over-explaining.
Hope you have lots of fun!!!
rosynelson
Chieftain
- Joined
- Aug 11, 2007
- Messages
- 40
Hi,
That was great information. Just what I'm looking for. Thank you. I've been playing Civ IV and Warlords for several months, but I don't seem to be improving my game much. I'm always a Dan Quayle. Now that I've started playing BTS, I thought I'd ask advice from all of you experts. I have to play BTS on my husbands Windows XP system on our full screen (8' x 10' estimate) home theater system. I have a MacBookPro and don't want to hassle with bootcamp or partitioning my hard drive. It's kind of cool on the big screen. tee hee Keep the advice coming. Thank you, Rosy
That was great information. Just what I'm looking for. Thank you. I've been playing Civ IV and Warlords for several months, but I don't seem to be improving my game much. I'm always a Dan Quayle. Now that I've started playing BTS, I thought I'd ask advice from all of you experts. I have to play BTS on my husbands Windows XP system on our full screen (8' x 10' estimate) home theater system. I have a MacBookPro and don't want to hassle with bootcamp or partitioning my hard drive. It's kind of cool on the big screen. tee hee Keep the advice coming. Thank you, Rosy
Many people think Huayna Capac is a mile above and beyond all others. I'm one of them.
- His unique unit allows the quickest and most unfair rush ever
- He gets free culture with the first building you will want in a new city... it even remains in newly conquered cities; instant culture is nice.
- IND and FIN are powerful long-term builder traits, allowing you to keep ahead.
Whatever you plan to do... if it isn't rapid expansion, HC allows you to push harder from it straight from the start. If it's rapid expansion... nobody helps you better dealing with the resulting stress on your economy. Extra commerce from FIN to offset the maintenance, and an easier time nabbing religious/trade wonders beyond the essentials.
- His unique unit allows the quickest and most unfair rush ever
- He gets free culture with the first building you will want in a new city... it even remains in newly conquered cities; instant culture is nice.
- IND and FIN are powerful long-term builder traits, allowing you to keep ahead.
Whatever you plan to do... if it isn't rapid expansion, HC allows you to push harder from it straight from the start. If it's rapid expansion... nobody helps you better dealing with the resulting stress on your economy. Extra commerce from FIN to offset the maintenance, and an easier time nabbing religious/trade wonders beyond the essentials.
I couldn't ever get HC to really work for my style of play because I couldn't get the warrior rush to work for me. So, given my limitations HC just isn't a great leader for me.
Besides, I get most of the advantages of HC via my Bodica strategy. I make sure I build Stongehenge which means I get culture in every city. Also, I start taking over my neighbors early and often, meaning I steal their wonders too. So the fact that I didn't build the wonder means little because it's mine by conquest.
Once again, I'm not saying that HC isn't great, just that I haven't figured out how to use him effectively yet.
I heard another guy say that Ghandi is, unexpectedly, great for war because of his "spiritual" trait and his unique building replacement for the jail. I've never had that work for me either. If you really value the "spiritual" trait for military purposes (usually so you can switch civics at will), I recommend Brennus (the other celtic leader).
I guess back to the original poster, this thread illustrates why play style is so important. You have to match the leader strengths and weaknesses against *your* strengths and weaknesses. As you read the threads, find out how the player uses the leader to see if the leader is a good match for how you play the game.
-- SJN
Besides, I get most of the advantages of HC via my Bodica strategy. I make sure I build Stongehenge which means I get culture in every city. Also, I start taking over my neighbors early and often, meaning I steal their wonders too. So the fact that I didn't build the wonder means little because it's mine by conquest.
Once again, I'm not saying that HC isn't great, just that I haven't figured out how to use him effectively yet.
I heard another guy say that Ghandi is, unexpectedly, great for war because of his "spiritual" trait and his unique building replacement for the jail. I've never had that work for me either. If you really value the "spiritual" trait for military purposes (usually so you can switch civics at will), I recommend Brennus (the other celtic leader).
I guess back to the original poster, this thread illustrates why play style is so important. You have to match the leader strengths and weaknesses against *your* strengths and weaknesses. As you read the threads, find out how the player uses the leader to see if the leader is a good match for how you play the game.
-- SJN
Not only is HC a great all-round leader (I won't say 'best' - it depends on the player), he's also especially helpful for a new player in the crucial early turns of the game:- Quechas mean you don't need any techs or resources to defend against barbarians (at least until barb axes show up - if ever).
- Terraces mean easy border pops (kind of like being Creative).
- Financial means riverside cottages (and coasts) provide 3
straight away.- Industrious means it's fairly easy to grab several of the powerful early wonders.
- Agriculture means you can build farms as soon as the first worker is complete.
- Mysticism means you can grab an early religion.
All of this adds up to a leader who takes a lot of the strain off a new player early on, allowing him/her to concentrate on expansion, development and economy building, and makes it easier to learn the power of cottages and wonders.
However, there is a danger of becoming too dependent on HC's advantages. The reason for this is the same reason he is such a great leader for a noob - his advantages can be leveraged with a minimum of effort. For a leader like Gandhi, for example, leveraging those advantages requires more understanding of the game, and more effort (inc. micromanagement). For leaders like Joao or Tokugawa, even more effort and understanding is required.
So, my advice to the new player is to start out with HC, play a few games to get a grip on the basics, then move on to someone a little more tricky.
Edit:
SJN said:
hehe, was that me, by any chance?
There's more to it than you suggest, though - the combination of Spiritual's anarchy-free civic changes and Philosophical's earlier Great People is the key to Gandhi's power as a warmonger. Replacing either one of the traits seriously undermines the advantages of Gandhi-style on/off warmongering.
Slip de Garcon
Warlord
So am I! Mysticism is crucial to getting an early religion in BtS, and most of the other leaders that come with mysticism, IMHO, suck.
Assuming your new to Civ4 and not just new to the expansion...
I'd definitely suggest using a leader with the Financial trait for the first couple of runs. This will give you a lot of extra leeway while you figure out how to manage your economy and research.
Arguably Charismatic and Expansive are most useful on the harder difficulty settings. A large part of their main bonuses are (respectively) extra happiness and health, but on the easier settings you get some for free anyway.
I'd definitely suggest using a leader with the Financial trait for the first couple of runs. This will give you a lot of extra leeway while you figure out how to manage your economy and research.
Arguably Charismatic and Expansive are most useful on the harder difficulty settings. A large part of their main bonuses are (respectively) extra happiness and health, but on the easier settings you get some for free anyway.
Agreed to all points about Huyana Capac. Taken together, the Inca are in my opinion far and away the best civilization. But everyone doesn't play the same way.
My personal favorites otherwise:
Rameses - Great UU, okay UB, and his Spiritual/Industrious combo allows for a flexible leader who is particularly great at building. Over the course of the game spiritual can not only save you 10 or more turns of anarchy, but allows for much more flexibility in terms of shifting in and out of a war footing. I always seem to do great with him.
Ragnar - My favorite conquerer. He's aggressive, so half-priced barracks and a free promotion, his UU is awesome (I do a lot of damage with macemen in general, so giving them a city raider bonus is a great icing), and financial helps you keep the economy going and tech parity while you're expanding.
Gandhi - As already mentioned, a surprisingly great warmonger, but philosophical is one of the two most powerful traits (along with financial) and spiritual is, of course, a favorite.
And last but not least:
Mansa Musa - Probably my favorite, my win % with him is something like 95 up to Emperor. His UU is decent (allows for nice early defense), his UB is awesome (free money when you build forges), financial is one of the most powerful traits, and spiritual is a fantastic boost for reasons already noted.
My personal favorites otherwise:
Rameses - Great UU, okay UB, and his Spiritual/Industrious combo allows for a flexible leader who is particularly great at building. Over the course of the game spiritual can not only save you 10 or more turns of anarchy, but allows for much more flexibility in terms of shifting in and out of a war footing. I always seem to do great with him.
Ragnar - My favorite conquerer. He's aggressive, so half-priced barracks and a free promotion, his UU is awesome (I do a lot of damage with macemen in general, so giving them a city raider bonus is a great icing), and financial helps you keep the economy going and tech parity while you're expanding.
Gandhi - As already mentioned, a surprisingly great warmonger, but philosophical is one of the two most powerful traits (along with financial) and spiritual is, of course, a favorite.
And last but not least:
Mansa Musa - Probably my favorite, my win % with him is something like 95 up to Emperor. His UU is decent (allows for nice early defense), his UB is awesome (free money when you build forges), financial is one of the most powerful traits, and spiritual is a fantastic boost for reasons already noted.
If you're not new to civ, i'd suggest lincoln. I love his chm/phi trait combination so much i dont mind losing out on early UUs or UBs. I agree with the earlier poster that charismatic is one of the strongest new traits. bonuses to happiness early are huge and the reduction in xp, when combined with GGs (settled or attached to units), means that you can pump out mass amounts of high level troops and decimate your opponents. it's normal in my games that i eventually produce level 5 or 6 guys off the bat.
another great one is suileman (sp?). his combination of Imp/Phi and his UU whihc gives +2 to health and happiness allow for faster expansion, more GGs, more GPs, etc. ragnar and Hannibal are both also very powerful leaders
another great one is suileman (sp?). his combination of Imp/Phi and his UU whihc gives +2 to health and happiness allow for faster expansion, more GGs, more GPs, etc. ragnar and Hannibal are both also very powerful leaders
Huayna Capac makes Settler strategies work on Monarch and sometimes higher... which is a double-edged sword as it encourages bad habits: You might get too used to strategies that only work from a position of strength; other leaders need to claw their way up before they come into their own.
***
My favourite warmonger is probably Frederick, but Ghandi is only a smidgeon behind and in many ways more pleasant to play since spiritual is great at correcting an 'oops', be it by drafted defenders or by switching to a peacetime economy after you overextended your resources. If you see war as a welcome tool to achieve modest goals instead of taking over the world (ORG makes the conquest a lot easier to keep), he might even be better. PHI is an awesome trait for boosting a typical warmongering economy, and the others further improve its efficiency.
***
For a builder I actually consider a decent military UU more important; you will wish to secure space or take down threats in short and decisive wars that don't affect your economy; a temporary advantage is great for this. Huayna Capac and Darius have excellent rushing potential and strong economic traits (Huayna is the king of daring and spectacular openings; Darius is less exciting but highly efficient). Qin and Augustus have long-lived and supremely powerful UUs, the latter can also use IMP as an excellent support trait: Often the problem with wonderspamming is that it's hard to balance it against adequate expansion; much easier if you get a sizable bonus to chopping/whipping settlers.
***
Many things depend on playstyle. I for one prefer raw economic power over military or 'convenience' traits... to the extent that I prefer economic boosts for warmongers despite having played many military games appreciating Tokugawa's kickass bread-and-butter units and Cyrus's ability to heap bonuses on the truly fun stuff (cavalry, navy, siege...).
I simply have an easier time winning wars than keeping my economy afloat in the process.
I'm also not very good at leveraging convenience and expansion-oriented traits. Sure, Catherine is excellent for containing the opposition but I never feel like I gained a great advantage. It's costly and I don't trust neighbours who are squeezed into tight spaces. If I need to contain them that badly I'll just declare a phony war, steal a few workers and pillage them dry; problem solved.
Trying to leverage some traits merely result in shooting yourself in the foot, thus some dismiss them as weak while others swear by them. this mostly seems to affect IND and CRE.
***
My favourite warmonger is probably Frederick, but Ghandi is only a smidgeon behind and in many ways more pleasant to play since spiritual is great at correcting an 'oops', be it by drafted defenders or by switching to a peacetime economy after you overextended your resources. If you see war as a welcome tool to achieve modest goals instead of taking over the world (ORG makes the conquest a lot easier to keep), he might even be better. PHI is an awesome trait for boosting a typical warmongering economy, and the others further improve its efficiency.
***
For a builder I actually consider a decent military UU more important; you will wish to secure space or take down threats in short and decisive wars that don't affect your economy; a temporary advantage is great for this. Huayna Capac and Darius have excellent rushing potential and strong economic traits (Huayna is the king of daring and spectacular openings; Darius is less exciting but highly efficient). Qin and Augustus have long-lived and supremely powerful UUs, the latter can also use IMP as an excellent support trait: Often the problem with wonderspamming is that it's hard to balance it against adequate expansion; much easier if you get a sizable bonus to chopping/whipping settlers.
***
Many things depend on playstyle. I for one prefer raw economic power over military or 'convenience' traits... to the extent that I prefer economic boosts for warmongers despite having played many military games appreciating Tokugawa's kickass bread-and-butter units and Cyrus's ability to heap bonuses on the truly fun stuff (cavalry, navy, siege...).
I simply have an easier time winning wars than keeping my economy afloat in the process.
I'm also not very good at leveraging convenience and expansion-oriented traits. Sure, Catherine is excellent for containing the opposition but I never feel like I gained a great advantage. It's costly and I don't trust neighbours who are squeezed into tight spaces. If I need to contain them that badly I'll just declare a phony war, steal a few workers and pillage them dry; problem solved.
Trying to leverage some traits merely result in shooting yourself in the foot, thus some dismiss them as weak while others swear by them. this mostly seems to affect IND and CRE.
Huayna Capac makes Settler strategies work on Monarch and sometimes higher... which is a double-edged sword as it encourages bad habits: You might get too used to strategies that only work from a position of strength; other leaders need to claw their way up before they come into their own.
***
My favourite warmonger is probably Frederick, but Ghandi is only a smidgeon behind and in many ways more pleasant to play since spiritual is great at correcting an 'oops', be it by drafted defenders or by switching to a peacetime economy after you overextended your resources. If you see war as a welcome tool to achieve modest goals instead of taking over the world (ORG makes the conquest a lot easier to keep), he might even be better. PHI is an awesome trait for boosting a typical warmongering economy, and the others further improve its efficiency.
***
For a builder I actually consider a decent military UU more important; you will wish to secure space or take down threats in short and decisive wars that don't affect your economy; a temporary advantage is great for this. Huayna Capac and Darius have excellent rushing potential and strong economic traits (Huayna is the king of daring and spectacular openings; Darius is less exciting but highly efficient). Qin and Augustus have long-lived and supremely powerful UUs, the latter can also use IMP as an excellent support trait: Often the problem with wonderspamming is that it's hard to balance it against adequate expansion; much easier if you get a sizable bonus to chopping/whipping settlers.
***
Many things depend on playstyle. I for one prefer raw economic power over military or 'convenience' traits... to the extent that I prefer economic boosts for warmongers despite having played many military games appreciating Tokugawa's kickass bread-and-butter units and Cyrus's ability to heap bonuses on the truly fun stuff (cavalry, navy, siege...).
I simply have an easier time winning wars than keeping my economy afloat in the process.
I'm also not very good at leveraging convenience and expansion-oriented traits. Sure, Catherine is excellent for containing the opposition but I never feel like I gained a great advantage. It's costly and I don't trust neighbours who are squeezed into tight spaces. If I need to contain them that badly I'll just declare a phony war, steal a few workers and pillage them dry; problem solved.
Trying to leverage some traits merely result in shooting yourself in the foot, thus some dismiss them as weak while others swear by them. this mostly seems to affect IND and CRE.
***
My favourite warmonger is probably Frederick, but Ghandi is only a smidgeon behind and in many ways more pleasant to play since spiritual is great at correcting an 'oops', be it by drafted defenders or by switching to a peacetime economy after you overextended your resources. If you see war as a welcome tool to achieve modest goals instead of taking over the world (ORG makes the conquest a lot easier to keep), he might even be better. PHI is an awesome trait for boosting a typical warmongering economy, and the others further improve its efficiency.
***
For a builder I actually consider a decent military UU more important; you will wish to secure space or take down threats in short and decisive wars that don't affect your economy; a temporary advantage is great for this. Huayna Capac and Darius have excellent rushing potential and strong economic traits (Huayna is the king of daring and spectacular openings; Darius is less exciting but highly efficient). Qin and Augustus have long-lived and supremely powerful UUs, the latter can also use IMP as an excellent support trait: Often the problem with wonderspamming is that it's hard to balance it against adequate expansion; much easier if you get a sizable bonus to chopping/whipping settlers.
***
Many things depend on playstyle. I for one prefer raw economic power over military or 'convenience' traits... to the extent that I prefer economic boosts for warmongers despite having played many military games appreciating Tokugawa's kickass bread-and-butter units and Cyrus's ability to heap bonuses on the truly fun stuff (cavalry, navy, siege...).
I simply have an easier time winning wars than keeping my economy afloat in the process.
I'm also not very good at leveraging convenience and expansion-oriented traits. Sure, Catherine is excellent for containing the opposition but I never feel like I gained a great advantage. It's costly and I don't trust neighbours who are squeezed into tight spaces. If I need to contain them that badly I'll just declare a phony war, steal a few workers and pillage them dry; problem solved.
Trying to leverage some traits merely result in shooting yourself in the foot, thus some dismiss them as weak while others swear by them. this mostly seems to affect IND and CRE.
Thing is with the industrial trait that if you lack stone and marble it's loses most of it's power.
If I play an industrial leader i restart if i don't find one of these resources nearby.
I like to play different leaders, i've tried most of them. Some of them i don't like [because of the nation they represent, i'm not going to say which one].
But i'd like to know what you guys think are overall the worst leaders?
For me i'd have to say the chinese guys. I don't like protective, and the industrial one is like i said not very versatile.
Plus the UU and UB really seem to suck.
Also i don't like Sitting Bull, phil is great, but the rest is pretty bad. As an AI he is also pretty bad, puts his cities way to close to eachother. In a war with him i raze half of them and don't even have to rebuild em because they would cover only 1 or 2 extra squares.
I also don't like Darius but that's because his traits don't really need a tactic. [Just get very rich and outtech everyone and do whatever you like].
If I play an industrial leader i restart if i don't find one of these resources nearby.
I like to play different leaders, i've tried most of them. Some of them i don't like [because of the nation they represent, i'm not going to say which one
].But i'd like to know what you guys think are overall the worst leaders?
For me i'd have to say the chinese guys. I don't like protective, and the industrial one is like i said not very versatile.
Plus the UU and UB really seem to suck.
Also i don't like Sitting Bull, phil is great, but the rest is pretty bad. As an AI he is also pretty bad, puts his cities way to close to eachother. In a war with him i raze half of them and don't even have to rebuild em because they would cover only 1 or 2 extra squares.
I also don't like Darius but that's because his traits don't really need a tactic. [Just get very rich and outtech everyone and do whatever you like].
Bandobras Took
Emperor
That's backwards. What Industrious does is give you a shot at wonders even if you lack the resource that makes them cheaper. Besides, some of the excellent wonders don't have any resource which makes them cheaper (e.g. Great Lighthouse). Having Stone or Marble nearby only means you're more likely to focus on those wonders.
Monkeyfinger
Deity
- Joined
- Oct 24, 2006
- Messages
- 2,002
I discovered the joys of Mighty Warrior Gandhi when forced to defend myself. Stalin and Genghis were all like "oh hey look, it's Gandhi, he's always easy pickings, let's get him!" So I quickly switched to fight mode to defend against their attacks, and could barely believe what I was seeing as I painted the floor with both of them while suffering no extra unhappiness in my non-conquered cities.
szemek77
Prince
There are clearly some leaders and nations which are much more easier to play. Huayna Capac, just to name one.
Personally I think it is just great to get random civilization. Playing one type of trait is getting bored. I don't understand "I restart the game if I don't have specific resource nearby" approach. I try to do my best with every location and every civilization I get. Survival in bad conditions could get you more satisfaction than using still the same paths to get yourself do HoF.
But of course this is just my opinion. Everyone should play the way he likes.
Just giving my ideas...
Personally I think it is just great to get random civilization. Playing one type of trait is getting bored. I don't understand "I restart the game if I don't have specific resource nearby" approach. I try to do my best with every location and every civilization I get. Survival in bad conditions could get you more satisfaction than using still the same paths to get yourself do HoF.
But of course this is just my opinion. Everyone should play the way he likes.
Just giving my ideas...
Sure sure, but i play on immortal.
If i start in the tundra i also reload the map, else i just can't do it.
And i don't like industrial for this reason, try and win the game without these resources is just too hard for me, Í am really a backward kinda guy you know.
But seriously, if you disagree that this trait relies heavier on your starting location then others you're even more backward then me.
And don't come naming all the possible game-mechanics that could save the day, in general: industrial is one of the weaker traits, but with marble and stone nearby it can be pretty good.
Similar threads
