Leader addiction

dont stay with the same leader!

discover entire new ways with new leaders!

got civ4 since it was out, but just started for real with shaka. it is a new game for me now.

 

does my leader get no love? I have only tried other leaders but have never finished a game with anyone but Gandhi.

Great People and changing Civics every 5 or so turns with no Anarchy is too much fun for me to pass up.

Does no one else like the "No Anarchy"

 

I'm pretty partial to Tokugawa myself. Once he gets to gunpowder the Japanese military is pretty much unstoppable. I also like Darius, who I'm currently playing.

 

It's been awhile since I played as anyone but Julius - praet rushes make me giddy. But maybe the solution is to just set the leader to 'random' when you start a game?

 

I am addicted to "Random" civ, and shuffle maps. I think the thrill is finding ways to adapt to unexpected circumstances.

That said, I am usually happy when I get the following leaders:

Wang Kon: Financial + Protective = Turtle with a tech lead
Joao: Carrak! zomg!

 

I don't get to play a lot of Civ, and I play Epic speed, so I don't finish games too quickly. I've finished ~5 BTS games so far (lost 2 when the patch update wasn't compatible because I locked the modifiable assets thing). However, I always pick a different leader. I've never played the same leader twice in a row, and only my favorites I'll play more than once or twice. I typically make sure both leader traits are different as well, and I don't go for the same wonders, etc. Occasionally, I'll do two Oracle-slingshots in a row or play the same trait twice, but otherwise, I avoid that.

Also, whoever said the American UU and UB are weak...care to say anything else besides being late in the game? I almost prefer late game UUs and UBs simply because it forces me to be a little more subtle with my strategy instead of being a munchkin (by the way, if you can only win with Roman Praetorians...). And the free March promotion is simply incredible, enough of a bonus in itself without a first strike. And the Mall? +20% gold and up to +3 happiness? That's not bad by a long shot.

 

I have always been a shameless great people addict so any philosophical civ is attractive to me. But since BTS we get sulieman!!! philo AND imperialistic?? Torrents of great people AND great generals?? too good to be true I mean if i score the great wall and pyramids and it is practically game over i've won!! plus he is ottoman which have very decent UU and UB's to boot.. I have really gotten into SE so much so that I just couldn't stomach playing a financial civ and going for a CE. But even other uber-SE civs like peter of russia or ghandi of india can't hold my attention now that suleiman is available. With warlords i tried to make mehmed work, i mean the potential for BIG empire, vertically and horizontally that expansive/organised combo gives is seductive especially with the hamman but somehow I could never make it work. Sulieman is the only one for me esp. on multiplayer.

 

I'm the one who said that... Yeah, I agree that the American UU and UB are really strong -- its just that my games have almost always been decided by the time I discover Refridgeration so it doesn't make me want to play as America. By this time my infrastructure is set up such that my best military city is pumping out a tank with 10 XP (GGs) each turn (Marathon) and my other cities have reached maturity. The 10 XP Tanks are better than any UU ever (unless I'm playing as Freddy) is, so I guess the strong UU that late doesn't really "shine" for me as much. Usually I don't even finish them because I know that they are going to be a tedious click'fest to the end unless I decide to win by Domination, which is even more tedious tank-driving. I had been playing a lot of Emporer/Huge/15 AI/Hemispheres games, but I've decided to start playing on Diety level to ensure that I either lose or play to the end.

Personally I like the English UU and UB. The UB is amazing and comes early enough that it's really effective. The UU is totally nerfed but Rifling is when the AI always seems to catch up to me momentarilly in tech, so its often a crucial moment for my civ. It also helps that I'm slightly addicted to Lizzy... Darius, Willem, Pacal, and other nice new additions have helped me break off my addictions slightly, but I still love Financial.

 

Hear. Hear..

"I'm a builder, You're a builder, wouldn't you like to be a builder too...."

 

Not usre if you have seen these yet but here's the link for some GREAT games documented for all.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?p=5320091

Its the "Sisutils" stuff for those who know already.

 

I had my best noble game with Oranje of the Dutch. I ended up capitulating a Permanent Alliance team of AI! It was glorious

 

I'm trying to play them all, but definitely have had favorites at times. With vanilla, I preferred Qin. With warlords, I moved on to Elizabeth (because I discovered how great financial trait was). So far with BTS, I really don't have a feel yet for who is the "strongest" new leader, but I have really enjoyed playing the Ethopian guy and the Khmer guy the most, I think.

 

The Khmer was a successful game for me as well. I rarely play with anyone who has the aggressive trait anymore. I find that having organized, imperialistic, financial, and even creative are more powerful for military games.

 

And Charismatic -- that's my all time favorite military trait. Go Carthage.

 

ooh, yeah, almost forgot that one!!! love that trait!

 

I have never been able to run a specialist economy well...so I either run a cottage economy with a great person city or a weird hybrid economy of cottages and specialists (my failed SE games that I still play anyway). It strikes me as being too wonder-dependent (on the Pyramids), and I hate having to build the same wonder every game for my strategy to work.

@hoopsnerd: I'm an Elizabeth fan as well; the British are one of my favorite Civs. As I said before, I like to be challenged a little bit throughout the early game, to develop a strategy for that situation that is not unique unit-dependent (notice a pattern here?). With a late UU, though, I'm able to wrap up the game quickly at the end; by the 18th and 19th century, I typically control at least 33% of the world (and that's on a slow one). The late-game bonuses let me finish off the AI, and get started again. This may also have something to do with map choice: since I don't get to play a lot of Civ, I play Small/Standard sized maps on Epic, typically with 6-10 Civs.

On Traits and Fav. Leaders: I've never really abused a particular leader, in my games, but I tend to like the Charismatic and Financial traits a little more than the rest (but I play them all--there really isn't a trait that I just hate).

 

Very interesting point of view there... yeah, I'm constantly "building for the future" so often my games end up with me being well ahead of everyone (or im dead) and too bored to slaughter the AI. Maybe if I had Marines it would increase my motivation to quickly move for domination victory.

 

umm,what have you done?
You get 2 vassals at the same time,because they were permanent allies?
Is this possible???

 

It is! I did it on purpose to test it. I had already lost the time vic because they joined in PA at around 2040. So after the game was over, i attacked!

 

I had this problem, and occasionally still have relapses. When I first started playing Civ IV, I played Caesar. Praets FTW and all of that. Then I moved up to Noble and decided to try other leaders and used Elizabeth a lot. When I moved to Prince, I decided I needed to try other leaders and discovered Asoka. I played the hell out of him and loved his traits. He is still one of my favourite leaders in the game.

I now play my games on Monarch and force myself to use other leaders. When I want a good kickass, take names game, I play Darius. I played him a few games straight and realized I was developing some handicaps that would hurt when a different Civ.

I try to play different leaders that I haven't played before. Some have worked really well, and I find new strategies. Other ones, that I want to like, I haven't yet been able to make more than a 'meh' kind of game with. I'll revisit them and try to see what I can make work.

But trying different Civs and playstyles has greatly improved my game. When I started Civ IV a year or so ago, I was playing Warlord level and Noble kicked my ass. Now I routinely win on Monarch and might give Emperor a shot sometime in the not so distant future. I don't think I would have learned as much if I stayed with certain leaders and civs all the time.

But that Asoka still beckons...