Conquest: Ragnar or Hannibal?

[Martinus]

This is essentially an Aggressive vs. Charismatic question (both leaders are Financial). Which one would be better suited for a conquest victory?

 

[oyzar]

imo carismatic is stronger than agressive at least for fighting over longer periods.

 

[scooter]

imo carismatic is stronger than agressive at least for fighting over longer periods.

Seconded. Aggressive is best for the very early game, but in conquest where you're fighting extended wars, IMO charismatic would be much better because the promotions come faster. The addition of charismatic into the expansion makes aggressive feel like a weaker trait IMO, although double-speed barracks are nice.

 

[r_rolo1]

I do agree that Charismatic >> Aggressive in terms of conquest, but Ragnar UU >> Hannibal UU and Ragnar UB has a more military taste . My personnal choice goes to Ragnar ( GL + Colossus + Berserk + Nav I galleys = Conquer coastal cities + burn the rest = conquest victory)

 

[czechdude]

If water map, ragnar, if not, hannibal.

 

[Ajidica]

did carthage terrorize europe? did the vikings? case point

 

[oyzar]

both did...

 

[rabidveggie]

Carthage didn't terrorize Europe Hannibal only terrorized Italy... And Spain.

 

[cabert]

conquest win? try the zulus

 

[oyzar]

he terrorized rome... which pretty much was europe at that time...

 

[r_rolo1]

Or Augustus....

 

[cabert]

Or Augustus....

really? with augustus, i go for domination
don't know why

then again, I always go for domination (or culture )

 

[T.rex]

Romans, get access to iron as quick as possible and produce your legions ad nauseum. Either Caeser is good enough to achieve such a victory.