Highest leader ratings without UU/UBs

[Mylene]

Mods should split topics, or whatever...
this thread is not about Praets, Marathon/Huge...we have countless of those by now...

 

[MarigoldRan]

Wars of attrition at that point in the game are most often a sure way to never get into a winning position overall. When the AI has significant bonuses in production, research, and early expansion, attrition is a losing strategy. Trebs arent good because they're cheap, they're good because collateral damage saves you overall hammers.

Aggressive does little for a HA rush, barracks are cheap enough already.

An attack by ele-pult or trebs IS a war of attrition, so you're contradicting yourself there.

Trebs save hammers because of collateral damage. Fine. Praets save hammers because they're damn cheap in hammers and hit just as hard against cities, and hit much harder outside of cities.

Praets are pretty hammer-efficient. This is not a point of debate you can win.

 

[MarigoldRan]

Mods should split topics, or whatever...
this thread is not about Praets, Marathon/Huge...we have countless of those by now...

So what about the times you and others hijacked threads?

EDIT: Fair enough. This is your thread. But the complaint is somewhat hypocritical.

 

[MarigoldRan]

To Mylene:

On normal speed, PHI is most useful for cruddy situations where you need some Great Person to turn things around. There's a lot of times where an earlier GSpy or GScientist is very useful. Agreed.

On less-cruddy situations, ORG/EXP is better.

It depends on the map and the situation.

 

[ben-jammin]

An attack by ele-pult or trebs IS a war of attrition, so you're contradicting yourself there.

Trebs save hammers because of collateral damage. Fine. Praets save hammers because they're damn cheap in hammers and hit just as hard against cities, and hit much harder outside of cities.

Praets are pretty hammer-efficient. This is not a point of debate you can win.

I dont think you understand what a war of attrition is. That's where you both lose a lot of units but gradually gain an advantage by either producing more, or losing slightly fewer. Collateral damage is a way of AVOIDING a war of attrition, why would you bother talking about praets in lieu of trebs when, by the time you could build both, you obviously would? Attrition at immortal-deity is always in the AIs favour, they have every advantage in when it comes to pumping out units and still making progress technologically.

Praets on their own fall down when cultural defense gets to 80% and up, then the attrition is too high and the warring is too slow. Then they need collateral just like anything else. They're also no longer untouchable in the open field on their own when the AI gets crossbows. You keep pointing to the one game where on top level player won with Praets, and other won with a combination of praets and other offensive units. How about the other two randomly generated games with the intent of going with Praets where all the attempts really went nowhere? 1 for 3? Not great.

In any case, Mylene is right, this thread is not about fellating julius caesar. So to stay on topic I'll say...Pericles. Phi/Cre has such great early synergy that you'll often never even build his UU/UB and still do very well.

 

[MarigoldRan]

I dont think you understand what a war of attrition is. That's where you both lose a lot of units but gradually gain an advantage by either producing more, or losing slightly fewer. Collateral damage is a way of AVOIDING a war of attrition, why would you bother talking about praets in lieu of trebs when, by the time you could build both, you obviously would? Attrition at immortal-deity is always in the AIs favour, they have every advantage in when it comes to pumping out units and still making progress technologically.

Praets on their own fall down when cultural defense gets to 80% and up, then the attrition is too high and the warring is too slow. Then they need collateral just like anything else. They're also no longer untouchable in the open field on their own when the AI gets crossbows. You keep pointing to the one game where on top level player won with Praets, and other won with a combination of praets and other offensive units. How about the other two randomly generated games with the intent of going with Praets where all the attempts really went nowhere? 1 for 3? Not great.

In any case, Mylene is right, this thread is not about fellating julius caesar. So to stay on topic I'll say...Pericles. Phi/Cre has such great early synergy that you'll often never even build his UU/UB and still do very well.

Yes. Once Castles come up, you need catapults. You still want praets, instead of maces or Xbows, because they're a better post-collateral unit. This is one of the reasons why praets are good. They're a good medieval unit, better than maces or xbows for their cost.

The other two generated maps was 1 for 2, and only because only two people played the second map in the first place and no one bothered to research IW or build praets in the first place. So... 2 for 3 and the 1 that didn't show praets convincingly was due to a no-attempt. The gold map was AWESOME. Everyone agreed that praets worked, though Mylene argued that HAs worked well too.

 

[ben-jammin]

Yes. Once Castles come up, you need catapults. You still want praets, instead of maces or Xbows, because they're a better post-collateral unit. This is one of the reasons why praets are good. They're a good medieval unit, better than maces or xbows for their cost.

The other two generated maps was 1 for 2, and only because only two people played the second map in the first place and no one bothered to research IW or build praets in the first place. So... 2 for 3. The gold map was AWESOME. Everyone agreed that praets worked, though Mylene argued that HAs worked well too.

Catapults by the time the AI has castles are useless and not even upgradeable, I'm wondering how often you've actually done this.

 

[MarigoldRan]

Catapults by the time the AI has castles are useless and not even upgradeable, I'm wondering how often you've actually done this.

Catapults are VERY useful when castles are up. I've had lots of experience with it at Marathon/Huge. Duckweed did it on normal.

As Duckweed says (paraphrased):

"Use the Catapults for suicide collateral damage."

"The praets do the rest."

EDIT: Here's the actual quote.

"Not many things to be mentioned before that, after killing ~30 units from Shaka, I still had to give him Aes (that was a gift from Alex) for peace. With 3 dozens of Praets, I attacked multiple Greek cities in the same time, picked CoL and something for peace. This was done in 100 AD.

Here I made the 1st big mistake, did not bribe Shaka leaving the war, suddenly, both Shaka and GK took 1 city from Charley in the same turn so Charley became a vassal of Shaka.

Now my SOD were in position for next victim, the protective and very advanced Mao. His city defense was just scary, Shanghai was 85%, and Beijing was 125%! Most of my cats were still on the way. So I just brought the only 2 cats, as you could see in the screenshot, that's all for Shanghai, another 4 cats for Beijing, and none for his 3rd city Nanjing. Mao had protective CKNs and LBs, and macemans. Are you feeling desperate? I was not, praets are GREAT! It was about 1:1 loss ratio, and most important, it's swift, I took the cities without wasting time for bombardment."

So here we're talking about wiping out MAO who has the Chitchen Itza, in the MEDIEVAL ERA post-ENGINEERING.

 

[rugbyLEAGUEfan]

this thread is not about fellating julius caesar.

Classic

 

[ahcos]

Wow. Time to use a feature i've never actually used before in 14 years of online activity: ignoring users.

I dont see why anyone would choose to play a poor start to the highest difficulty levels.

Haha, you could also state: what's the point of playing strong starts? Experienced players already know that they can win with strong starts. Why should the even bother to play them? They're interested in the tricky games, those that can't be won the easy way.

There is little use for bulbing if the AI has already researched the bulb tech too.

Erm... yeah... but isn't that why you bulb? To get techs before the AI has them? Don't you visit the techscreen before you make your next move? Don't get your point.

Bulbing doesnt always give you an advantage, the only techs that are worth it are Philosophy if you can get it before anyone else, and Education due to how expensive it is, and both of these get you to Liberalism faster.

You're breaking PHI down to just bulbing. There are some more uses for GPs, as you should know.

PHI, SPI and IND give you far less advantage on the highest difficulties than CRE, EXP and ORG do.

oO

First of all, that's very map dependent. I'd prefer to play a sole SPI leader without a second trait compared to a EXP/CRE leader on a map with a very rough diplomatic situation, so you can please the AI whenever possible or needed. Being able to switch religion and civics every 5 turns is pure gold if that means you'll get cheap diplo points all the time.

Generally i'd agree that CRE is probably the best trait for Deity on fractal/normal, but the other 5 traits you mentioned are pretty much even in strength (and CRE isn't far ahead of them). And then you'll have games where you'd rather have PHI/SPI than CRE/EXP. It's all about the map.

Anyway, stating that PHI, SPI and IND are weaker than ORG, EXP and CRE is just plain wrong imo, unless you qualify your statement. My two fav. leaders, Hatsepsut and Isabella, use SPI. It's a kickass trait if you know how to leverage it.

 

[rugbyLEAGUEfan]

Speaking of playing good / bad starts , I'm in that grey area at the moment where I can more often than not win any start on immortal and have a good lead by 1 AD making it boring . But random leader , map etc on deity is still to hard and frankly too much work . ( I should point out I play marathon and 100% accept it is noticeably easier)

Solution ? My flatmate suggested it and I'm starting it today . He suggested picking worst leader , generating 5 maps and choosing the worst . So Charlemagne it is on what is sure to be a dodgy map....I think Charlie will be particularly hurt by this format due to starting techs.

 

[Seraiel]

Yes, the extra value of military techs might be what civvver was hinting at.
Theology bulb might very well be interesting I guess.

Theology bulb is a very interessting one. In my latest games, I'm doing it with the GA from Music by researching Literature and Drama before it. Speeds up Music, and only takes 1700 Beakers (Huge Marathon Map) to get a 3000 Beakers Tech (Theology) and, Drama and Theology are awesome traid bait.
I didn't regret it so far to research both, Literature and Drama. I don't know if I got this correctly, but having the pre-requisites should lower the research-cost by some 20% on the specific tech, is that right? Then Literature (1100 Beakers) and Drama (1700 Beakers) spare you 20% of 3500 Beakers = 700 Beakers which is half the cost of the superflous Drama, and you still get the awesome Theology bulb for free after that for another 3k Beakers, leaving you with Drama + Music monopoly, let you trade Literature for money (as it's cheap) and Theo for any tech you want, while you can continue with Paper and Education early.

Early academy, bulbs and early GP settling = win

I just had to laugh about this. Settling GPs, does actually anyone have done this on purpouse? If so, what were the circumstances. And is there really a need for an Academy before CS? Think about it.

 

[leif erikson]

I was thinking today, what would be my favorite leaders if UUs and UBs wouldn't exist ~~
I know it's not a 100% strategy thread, but i think it can result in some interesting discussions about leader strengths

I think my first pick would be...de Gaulle.
Ind + Cha is a combination good for both war and building, and he gets imo the 2 best starting techs with Agri + Wheel.

Other leaders i like, in random order:
Suleiman
Gandhi (not so good starting techs, but excellent traits)
Lincoln (almost like deGaulle, but fishing ~~)
Lizzy (Queen of coastal starts)
Ramy (Think i'd rate Cha a bit higher than Spi, otherwise like Gaulle)
Sitting Bull (Survival King, even without his specials...i think he'd do well)

There are probably more, but enough for now

<snip>

For Marathon/Huge Deity, with standard # of civs, the answer is NEITHER. An early GS is pretty worthless.

<snip>

But consider, on a Huge map, you've already GOT more than enough land to expand to (though on average maps you won't have the COMMERCE to do so). Most of your important wars won't start until after Currency or Alphabet.

The Opening Post concerns leaders you would favor if UU's and UB's did not exist. How in the heck we get to Marathon/Huge and Praets again is beyond me.

Can any thread you become involved in ever not include those topics? Please, try to keep to the discussion.

 

[Bebekija]

Huh?...

I clicked on a thread called "Highest leader ratings without UU/UBs" and I'm back at PraetFanatics' forums again...
Broken link I guess

~~~~

Anyway, on topic:
IMO the best leaders when not considering UU/UBs have to be those starting with the Wheel + Agri, it's the best combo on most maps.
So the leaders that fit the best my playstyle are going to be Hatty, Mehmet II, and I'll admit I have a thing for Nappy.
Most of the other leaders are Industrious, and no matter how hard I try I can't seem to use this trait properly.

Other than that, Mansa (The wheel + fast BW + SPI/FIN) and Gandhi (despite the terrible starting techs, but best trait combo IMO).

 

[ben-jammin]

I just had to laugh about this. Settling GPs, does actually anyone have done this on purpouse? If so, what were the circumstances. And is there really a need for an Academy before CS? Think about it.

Seriously? There is a whole strategy that revolves around settling great people, and it's very powerful at the highest difficulties.

 

[coanda]

Settling GPs, does actually anyone have done this on purpouse? If so, what were the circumstances. And is there really a need for an Academy before CS? Think about it.

I thought about it, and I just have to laugh at this. Early Academy is critical - it's often a 30-40% boost to your total bpt. Far more useful than later in the game, where your research is often spread out over a half-dozen cities and will soon get universities.

As for settling GPs on purpose... I've never made it work, but look at basically any of obsolete's SSE games (there's quite a few listed in this post: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=6360663&postcount=3 )

In short, it is quite a viable strategy right up through Deity.

 

[rugbyLEAGUEfan]

This isn't always the case and it's been mentioned a few times in this thread . Either via REX or war , often the slider is at 0-30% science and the whole economy is propped up by specialists . In this case , an academy is a waste . It was a mistake I made often and an academy , though eventually essential in any cottaged capital can easily wait till even a third or fourth Great scientist

 

[coanda]

If the econ is propped up by specialist beakers, the academy is still useful. If it's propped up solely by bulbs... well, you'd better have some damn good trading partners. Yes, there are occasional games where beaker outputs of your cities simply don't matter. They're just rare.

Edit: And a second thought. If your economy is totally reliant on bulbs to stay competitive in tech that will make early academy less useful. But it will make PHI overall far more useful.

 

[rugbyLEAGUEfan]

Interesting what you say about PHI becoming more valuable under those circumstance . I've definitely had periods with the slider at 0 after very early pre currency war , and PHI would be a top tier warmongering trait . Everything syncs nicely ..... I'll be furiously whipping libraries to get rid of rebelling citizens and get some culture ( I'll always try to avoid mysticism if possible), running 2 scientists even in future production cities (they will eventually pop a GP then you can remove them) . 4 or 5 cities running specialists will do the job tech wise for sure .

I just don't recall having an early warmongering start with a PHI leader....probably cause the initial instinct is to maximize the trait with a peaceful start , but this has really got me thinking about the opportunities to use the trait differently . Alexander and lincoln would be the obvious candidates . Frederick and Peter both start with mining and have good second traits for war and Sulieman would be another good candidate.

 

[Archbob]

I just had to laugh about this. Settling GPs, does actually anyone have done this on purpouse? If so, what were the circumstances. And is there really a need for an Academy before CS? Think about it.

Settling GS's on normal early is actually pretty powerful, it will shave off several turns off each tech discovery and its not a one-time benefit. By medieval times, I could get get it down to a tech discovery every two-three turns in a good city. You basically blitz right for liberalism once you get the currency tech and build science improvements. Not many people play under Marathon where it would be less useful. But under Marathon, I don't really concentrate that much on science, its much easier just to conquer everything. Some of the other GP's give you money which allows you to keep your slider up.