Favourite Conqueror
- Thread starter Frostyboy
- Start date
Aramazd
Deity
Tokugawa and Alexander are my favorites.
Tokugawa because samuri rock and organized helps when you have a big empire.
Alexander for Philosophical to help get Great Artists.
Tokugawa because samuri rock and organized helps when you have a big empire.
Alexander for Philosophical to help get Great Artists.
Abgar said:
I couldn't agree more with you
Togukawa 1st choice, then Alex
Too bad the rest aren't that good.
- Genghis and his Grandson Kublai doesn't get combat 1 on their Keshiks (which are not taht good either)
- Musketeers and Jaguars sucks!!!
-Quechas come in too early (but the Incas are my 3rd choice)
Mano3
King
From the list, I'd pcikTogukawa, but I'm a builder, so I like Frederick or Bismarck to conquer late with my Panzers.
josephstalin
Kremlin Highlander
If going for conquest, I would pick Ceaser. Togukawa is too late for impact.
Rane Khan
Chieftain
Togukawa comes first, in a fast domination game he is king (perfect UU).
Alexander and Napoleon second/third, for wonders/great leaders. More points (Alex rocks at that), or simply more wonders (with Napo you can grab land and a lot of early/midgame wonders, on Prince anyway).
On the lower levels Huayna Capac is king, but the higher you get in difficulty level the more Quencha rushes fail so I have my doubts about him. Financial however gives you a small edge that helps later if you have killed your competition (you can keep up with science without having to trade to much and have a couple of extra cities)...
Alexander and Napoleon second/third, for wonders/great leaders. More points (Alex rocks at that), or simply more wonders (with Napo you can grab land and a lot of early/midgame wonders, on Prince anyway).
On the lower levels Huayna Capac is king, but the higher you get in difficulty level the more Quencha rushes fail so I have my doubts about him. Financial however gives you a small edge that helps later if you have killed your competition (you can keep up with science without having to trade to much and have a couple of extra cities)...
Rane Khan
Chieftain
Astalder said:
True, Ceasar is by far the best non aggressive conquerer, no contest I think...
Yes Caesar is good, although his Pratorians got more expensive in 1.52
Wonder if Augustus comes to play in the Xpansion
I do hope the Jaguars get changed also. They are worse than the Swordman unless you are stuck with just a couple of cities with no copper or iron
Wonder if Augustus comes to play in the Xpansion
I do hope the Jaguars get changed also. They are worse than the Swordman unless you are stuck with just a couple of cities with no copper or iron
Rane Khan
Chieftain
IamSid said:
Debatable...
DangerousMonkey
Warlord
- Joined
- Oct 2, 2005
- Messages
- 139
The Agressive trait is useful for conquering, but not overwhelmingly so. It only works on melee and gunpowder units, so mounted units (and later tanks) don't get squat. In fact, most of the Agressive leaders listed here actually have pretty poor UUs, or they dont' come early enough to make a difference. Of cource, there is the exception of the Khan's Kleshik, but they dont' even get the free promotion because they are mounted units.
Of cource, the Quechua is pretty good agains AIs because they don't understand how to counter it, but in multiplayer the Quechua isn't much of a powerhouse. The problem with these guys is that against anything but archers, they're just regular warriors. You can do better with other UUs.
If you want someone with serious steam-roller power early on you're going to want Rome for Praetorians, Mongolia for Kleshik or Egypt for War Chariots. Or, if you want a really early scrap, go for Mali Skirmishers. So, I guess if i have to pick one of those seven leaders presented earlier I'd have to pick Kubali Khan, but he's still hardly my favorite conqueror.
Of cource, the Quechua is pretty good agains AIs because they don't understand how to counter it, but in multiplayer the Quechua isn't much of a powerhouse. The problem with these guys is that against anything but archers, they're just regular warriors. You can do better with other UUs.
If you want someone with serious steam-roller power early on you're going to want Rome for Praetorians, Mongolia for Kleshik or Egypt for War Chariots. Or, if you want a really early scrap, go for Mali Skirmishers. So, I guess if i have to pick one of those seven leaders presented earlier I'd have to pick Kubali Khan, but he's still hardly my favorite conqueror.
I agree that non-agressive leaders may be good at conquering as well, and most agressive leaders have a rather bad UU, but I don't see how all the UU's you mention exept the Praetorian are that good for Conquest.
The Keshik only gets +1 first strike and can of course ignore terrain which is tactically good but not for taking cities.
War Chariots have the same strength as Axemen and are better at taking out archers due to their first strike immunity, so they are OK,
Skirmishes are more of a defensive unit after all.
And the Quechuas, I agree they are too early and are easily countered with someone more brained than the AI
But what about Immortals and their +50% vs archers? Doesn't that count (although Cyrus' Creative trait is rather weak)
The Chu-ko-nu of China are also great for weakening defences.
Still, if you really go for cobat most of your time, an agressive trait is really useful
The Keshik only gets +1 first strike and can of course ignore terrain which is tactically good but not for taking cities.
War Chariots have the same strength as Axemen and are better at taking out archers due to their first strike immunity, so they are OK,
Skirmishes are more of a defensive unit after all.
And the Quechuas, I agree they are too early and are easily countered with someone more brained than the AI
But what about Immortals and their +50% vs archers? Doesn't that count (although Cyrus' Creative trait is rather weak)
The Chu-ko-nu of China are also great for weakening defences.
Still, if you really go for cobat most of your time, an agressive trait is really useful
Mad Hab
Warlord
Isn't it puzzling that two of the 'Aggressive' leaders were easily wiped out of the map by the 'non-Aggressive' Spaniards in the real History?
Anyway, for me in Civ 4 Aggressive is more useful on the defense than on the offense. So I like Napoléon for a 'builder' strategy, hoping the might of his armies will keep all that greedy neighbors out of my frontiers...
Cheers,
Mad Hab
Anyway, for me in Civ 4 Aggressive is more useful on the defense than on the offense. So I like Napoléon for a 'builder' strategy, hoping the might of his armies will keep all that greedy neighbors out of my frontiers...
Cheers,
Mad Hab
flytyer
Master Fisherman
I actually like Genghis Khan and the Keshik unit. I have some pretty quick victories using this civ for a fast win. Of course if your 1st city does not have horses in its radius, that changes things.
SuperBeaverInc.
Groucho
Napoleon, as I don't tend to start my warmongerering until Gunpowder.
Similar threads
