Darius, The Best Leader.

[The Rook]

Of course Darius is the best - that's why someone scored over 1,000,000 points in an Immortal game with him. The quicker movement allows for early pillaging of military resources from multiple AI's (easily 4+ at once) and lets you pick them off more effortlessly.

JC would be the no brainer for 2nd.

I suppose if a leader is measured by how easily they can win in the very best case scenario then yes.

 

[madscientist]

I rank leaders on how they can handle any map with any leaders.

For this reason HC is the best as he can go from religious zealot to wonderSpammer, to early rusher, to fast culture, to cottage spammer elite, to trade route economy, to late game military CZar. He plays equally well on a massive land, coastal/islands, or isolation. He can generally handle large and small empires equally well.

Darius is a tad below because in isolation his ORG trait is a littel weaker and the UU is wasted. Also he is made for larger Persian empires not small compact ones.

JC is great except isolation cripples him badly, plus archeopolego maps are tougher on the Roman.

 

[CivIVMonger]

I rate Huayna Capac above and beyond all others. The Quechua is very useful in otherwise ugly situations (massive barbarian activity, opponent too close for comfort), the Terrace is quite helpful for getting your cities up faster and remains useful for a long time (most captured cities immediately produce culture).

Darius is a strong contender for second place, but the competition is tough. Either Roman, Mansa Musa and Elizabeth also have a lot going for them.

Your right, No one can truly "say" one leader is the best, (I always said "in my book".)
I personally don't like H. capac like anyone else he's good for some people.

This is a little OT, but persia's music is cooler than the Inca. Also, in history, H. capac JUST got crowned and instantly got the plague the spanish brought. Very, very soon after, he had no streangth to point out the next leader and he died. So the priests and elders decided, but the people had thier own opinion. For years there was a civil war of sick, weakened, and divided Incan People who were almost free for spanish conquest. H. capac was in charge during all this, and he did nothing. It's not what he did do, it's what he didn't do. I don't see why the civ team picked him. I've studied Incan history for quite some time now.

 

[InFlux5]

King Darius is probobly the best as he has probobly the best traits in the game, and it's a good combo. A very Solid UU as it get's a bonus vs. archers. And a good UB, and to top it off good starting techs!

Darius is definitely top-tier. And he's easy to use because Financial and Organized are both essentially passive commerce bonuses. (This is in contrast to things like Philosophical or Spiritual which require more micromanagement and planning to leverage well.)

But the title of best leader still goes to Huanya Capac, who has traits nearly as good as Darius', a better UU, and an extremely useful UB.

Industrious is iffy as a top tier trait. If you're playing at the right difficulty level, too many wonders can often hinder your game. I do like the adaptability though, in that there is an early wonder to help most strategies. Anyway HC is definitely one of the top civs regardless of what you think of Industrious.

Julius Caesar has the traits and UU to compete with either of them.

JC would be the no brainer for 2nd.

Putting my personal dislike for the cheesy and overpowered Praetorians, the fact that they require Iron is a real liability to my mind. If you lack for Iron the Romans become a pretty bland civ.

Asoka and Gandhi, Zara...

India? Really? I don't see them as being top-tier. Ethiopia is a powerhouse though.

And Hatty and Liz...

Hatshepsut is more like upper mid. Elizabeth is a powerhouse.

Darius has a slightly smaller window to dominate--you have to hook up horses and get an army out there before your targets hook up metal and field spearmen.

I hate chariot rushes for this reason. Some AI will have spearmen quite early on the higher levels. But this is getting somewhat off topic....

no love for kublai?

Teching to Horseback Riding leaves a bad taste in my mouth. No direct economy boosters leaves him off the short list for top tier.

I prefer Ghengis for the Imperialistic trait to produce faster GGs.

I think most people would rate Creative above Imperialistic in an abstract comparison.

Pericles gets production bonuses for libraries, odeons, and theatres, which all provide culture and specialist slots

Wow, you know I never noticed that the Odeon provides artist slots. A great leader for culture victories, I don't know if Pericles would be a candidate for "best" or top 5.

 

[§L¥ Gµ¥]

Industrious is iffy as a top tier trait. If you're playing at the right difficulty level, too many wonders can often hinder your game. I do like the adaptability though, in that there is an early wonder to help most strategies. Anyway HC is definitely one of the top civs regardless of what you think of Industrious.

Industrious is great for setting up a wonder-economy. Myds, Ankgor, Great Lighthouse, ToA, GL make Industrious a viable option at the higher levels too. All you need is one strong GP farm to remain competitive through to liberalism.

Putting my personal dislike for the cheesy and overpowered Praetorians, the fact that they require Iron is a real liability to my mind. If you lack for Iron the Romans become a pretty bland civ.

Iron is far more common than copper. It's relatively easy to rush someone with some form of weapon in the early game if you're unlucky enough not to have or be able to settle near some already.

India? Really? I don't see them as being top-tier. Ethiopia is a powerhouse though.

India is probably my favorite. Master spiritual and the cycling between civics and you can overcome or at least achieve parity with any warmonger's traits.

Hatshepsut is more like upper mid. Elizabeth is a powerhouse.

Hatshepsut is one of the top 5 IMO. Creative is amazing for setting up an SE, the war chariot is one of the best UUs, the obelisk will secure you and early shrine if you play your cards right, and the warmongering spiritual trait to top it off!

Lizzy is another strong leader, but when I play her I don't feel I can completely take advantage of both traits at the same time. To me, the Phi-Fin traits are as close to mutually exclusive as it gets. Sure, I have a crazy teching economy and I'll never be broke, but I don't ever get the sense I'm taking advantage of all the benefits both traits provide. Kinda like the law of diminishing returns on economic traits.

I hate chariot rushes for this reason. Some AI will have spearmen quite early on the higher levels. But this is getting somewhat off topic....

If you build enough chariots, promote them with flanking before combat ones, you can still win. You'll take losses, but it just means you aim for that source of copper before the capital.

Teching to Horseback Riding leaves a bad taste in my mouth. No direct economy boosters leaves him off the short list for top tier.

The economic benefit is with half the world's land before the AD's. Surely that counts for something?

Wow, you know I never noticed that the Odeon provides artist slots. A great leader for culture victories, I don't know if Pericles would be a candidate for "best" or top 5.

Meh, the odeon is weak. If you're going for cultural, you should be running caste with artists, more 'artist' slots mean nothing at this point. Where Pericles shines is his infrastructure for science. Faster libraries, Universities mean quicker science multipliers. Better still are the cheap theatres if you're running an SE to maximize that culture-slider happiness.

 

[Kwibuss]

King Darius is probobly the best as he has probobly the best traits in the game, and it's a good combo. A very Solid UU as it get's a bonus vs. archers. And a good UB, and to top it off good starting techs!

I agree. Simply because his traits keep me teching well even tho i'm expanding like mad.

 

[oyzar]

I have to agree that Darius is the best. As mentioned, he has it all: traits, starting techs, UU, and UB. No weakness, really. Of course his UU is situational--no early horses, no UU.

I always find that a leader either has good techs or good traits and not both, but Darius has both, which is awesome imo.

It's not so hard to claim land, but paying for it is a whole 'nother ball game. Darius has the easiest time of it.

Darius no weakness? Try a start with only seafood, and you'll see what slow is. He doesn't start with mining either, so trees can be a problem. With close neighbours that actually know what they are doing(read: not AI) without horses, you'll have no better chances than any other leader(and worse than most due to no exp, imp, starting warrior, agressive, cha, pro, cre). Sure you can get to ah fast, but if you have to settle a second city to get them it might already be too late by the time the dogs or holkans come a callin. Starting with a scout is obviously not an advantage. It locks you out of the best unit in the game for a large part of the game(warriors under hrule). But it is also though to keep it alive if someone are trying to kill it(human neighbours or higher level barbs).

Darius is probably the best at paying for the land, but it is eithjer a lie or ignorance that claiming land is never a problem...

I am not saying that Darius is bad. He isn't in my top 5 picks if the opponent isn't AI however.

When it comes to milking, it depends on the map which are better of Julius, Huyana or Darius, but really those games aren't close anyways...

 

[oyzar]

Of course Darius is the best - that's why someone scored over 1,000,000 points in an Immortal game with him. The quicker movement allows for early pillaging of military resources from multiple AI's (easily 4+ at once) and lets you pick them off more effortlessly.

JC would be the no brainer for 2nd.

Since when did milking become the measure used to figure out which leader is best?
The only reason Darius is uncontested there, is because pretty much noone plays those milking marathon games. Killerkane didn't try Julius out much. When each game takes 70+ hours, it takes quite a bit of patience to just finish one game.

http://hof.civfanatics.net/civ4/game_info.php?entryID=17041 here is a similar game with close to one million with Huyana for example(though that is deity, but only 972K score, only 20 hours playtime and finishing in the BC's lead me to belive that he didn't do much milking however). In a score gauntlet(though it was epic, GM40) I won as Julius with only 9 hours playing time while the guy in second place used Darius in 76 hours to get a worse result(I could have optimized a LOT more, i won way too early as i was just pushing to finish before the deadline towards the end.).

What does all this show? Only that milking is not a perfected art, and it probably will never be. Darius might have the official highest scoring game now, but it is the best ever, highly unlikely( http://hof.civfanatics.net/civ4/game_info.php?entryID=14779 this game on monarch got pretty close to the same as Huyana as another example).

Drawing the conclusion that Darius is the best leader ever just because he is the best leader at milking(which isn't in any way shown clearly), is a bit farfetched. Different people have different definitions of what makes a leader good. Winning those games you otherwise would have won seems like a good criteria, Sitting Bull seems like he fits well into that criteria, but would I call him the best ever because of that is unlikely. The best leader might be the one that gives you the highest probability of winning a specific game. As such the best leader is never set in stone and varies with specific maps, but also between settings the ones that have the highest probablity to be best for you vary. Economy is only one aspect of the game. I've lost games where I've gotten lib in the BC's, so economy is far from everything.

 

[CivIVMonger]

EVERY leader has a distinct weakness. I can safely say that Darius is AT LEAST #3
but I rank him #1

 

[ahmedhadzi]

I really don't understand why people don't like Huyana Capac, when I just started my playing of this game on the higher difficulties noble+ I thought he was one of the best leaders. Since I had wonder spamming tendencies he fit perfectly into my building strategies. After that I start learning more and more, realized about power of Quecha rush, then I learned even more and saw that playing Incas is relatively easy, as mentioned above in any situations.
But choosing the best leader? It is like asking which of the Victoria's Secret model is the most beautiful

 

[CivIVMonger]

But choosing the best leader? It is like asking which of the Victoria's Secret model is the most beautiful

It's doable

 

[Crusher1]

Since when did milking become the measure used to figure out which leader is best?

It's not. In that 1,000,000,000 thread Kill said he could have gotten a higher score in general, plus milked it more. When you find a higher score your opinion will have more merit. Until then results are > your opinion.

 

[The Rook]

It's not. In that 1,000,000,000 thread Kill said he could have gotten a higher score in general, plus milked it more. When you find a higher score your opinion will have more merit. Until then results are > your opinion.

I think measuring a leader by their highest score is akin to measuring a boxer by their fastest KO.

 

[oyzar]

You have 3 0's too many... I already linked to at least two comparable games with huyana... I am not going to play marathon just to show that it is possible to get a better score... And how come your opinion > my opinion when you haven't posted any notable milking games? I get 80% on the score on epic rushing to the finish with julius (where workers are 50% more expensive). At least we both agree that there are wast amount of untapped potential no matter what leader is chosen. This is getting seriously offtrack though as we both agree that milking isn't a good way to measure which leader is best.

 

[wioneo]

I think Hoonanny is definately the best AI leader in the game, which is slightly relevant, I tgink.

 

[CivIVMonger]

I'd rate it this way.

#1 Darius
#2 Julius Ceaser
#3 Hannible
#4 Hoonanny
#5 Pericles

I play on prince, My opinion is less than worthy.

 

[mboettcher]

HC is easily the best against the AI as the AI is so completely ignorant of handling Quecha's. But thats a fault of the programming so thats why he is practically banned vs the comp (not that its easy to program for such issues)

Otherwise no leader is the flat out best in my opinion. As many have said its situational. However, I would go as far as to rank them based on versatility. Obviously int eh right situation Darius can be devastating. Personally as far as powerful and economically adaptive traits my favorites are Cre, Ind, Exp which are slightly ahead of org,phi and fin in my opinion. Phi gets some bonus points for synergy with Cre though in Pericles position and I'll be willing to give Darius some too for Org covering fin's lack of buildings.

I just personally like the economic boosts of cheap good buildings combined with standing bonus'. Cre libraries, Colosseums, and theatres are all useful while lib is definitely top two useful early buildings along with granaries and courthouses. Cre establishes cultural dominance on the frontier easily with the two culture points and the libs which can't be underestimated when forced into smaller spaces by strong high level AI and resources on the fringe.

Exp is good because its exp. 2 free health points and cheap granaries for early expansion (wonder why its called that) along with cheap workers (great on the first few turns when trying to catch up) and cheap harbors to boot when upgrading TR. Nuff said, really hard to top

We all know how great Org is but the only sticking point I have is that I don't mind whipping in a courthouse. Its usually the third building I build after granary and library and at that point The overflow (from either a cheap lib or granary whip) and time wait to whip the courthouse is not a huge issue. Any trees I save from not chopping those two in can help build the courthouse as well. Even on higher difficulty and slower game speeds I don't find maintenance a pressing issue until the city reaches a size where it can whip a normal courthouse. Though don;t get me wrong ORg is a powerful trait and 2 whip courthouses are useful but I just don't find them more useful than cheap Libs or Granaries and the other bonus' of Cre and Exp push those traits over the top for me

I personally love Ind. I can build several wonders easily and the probability of getting either stone or marble is about as high as horses early I'd say so that evens out the Persian UU. With INd, stone its easy to build TGW which is really powerful for barbs and the GSpy early can be prettty darn powerful b4 anybody else can even generate many spy points (a GSPY from TGW has been worth 3-4 good techs over the course of a game for me many times. NOt counting trades. Cant say that about any other GP type). I hate building out normal forges as they take forever and provide a great boost to any whipping economy and can help get that early GE for Mining corp which is so hard to generate during the medieval times and Ren. Mids are also a good option with INd stone (and its rare when they are these days due to cost)

So my (Non-exclusive) vote goes to Louis, Pericles and Bismark. Though props to any leader with a good combo of those 6 traits and a good UU to leverage.


Also any HoF reference is slightly bogus in this dicussion (not that their scores don't reflect skill) because they are competing at such a high clip they need the ideal starting conditions not only in general but for that leader to pull off those numbers. Its not particularly reflective of diverse situations and challenges where a player may be boxed in by a deity AI.

 

[mboettcher]

Someone break Godwin's rule already

 

[Crusher1]

Also any HoF reference is slightly bogus in this dicussion (not that their scores don't reflect skill) because they are competing at such a high clip they need the ideal starting conditions not only in general but for that leader to pull off those numbers. Its not particularly reflective of diverse situations and challenges where a player may be boxed in by a deity AI.

Irrelevant. Everyone competing for HoF scores are still trying to do their absolute best, regardless how bogus the game and settings are. Hence, everyone has the same ability to regenerate and play heavenly scenarios in an attempt to be on top.

 

[Iranon]

I don't think that's the point. Ranking civ leaders by performance in HoF games is like ranking off-road vehicles by their top speed on salt flats... it's arguably more fair than any realistic comparison but still useless.

Ideal conditions and playing for a highscore in a small fraction of one's games are completely different from simply playing to win. The ability to survive a horrible start (useless land / insane barbarian activity / ultra-early AI DoW / being boxed in on 1 city without strategic resources/etc) will not feature at all for example.

*

While I enjoy playing leaders with more subtle tools at their disposal, I think the strongest leader have a knapsack full of sledge hammers, at least one of them being useful for each conceivable start.
Practically every aspect of HC is a potential early gamebreaker AND he's the least likely leader to lose in 3000BC.