Leader addiction
- Thread starter Quildavyr
- Start date
shooter6947
Scientist Specialist
I've been addicted to Darius of Persia -- immortals for that all-important early war, and then financial *AND* organized to keep you up in the tech race even with all those extra cities. Its not even remotely fair. I love it.
Brancaleone
Warlord
Until Warlords, i almost always played Catherine. With BTS, im playing almost exclusively Sumerians. I like to play slower games on epic, and Ziggurats really help. I tried playing Boudicca and when i needed those Ziggurats, all i had was an extra guerrilla I promotion, so i went bankrupt 
.
.
Jamesds
Great Scientist
I like trying out different Civs in Civ4, they are all well balanced (with some better than others for certain strategies of course). I did get this addiction in Civ3 though - I could never play as a Civ that wasn't Scientific!
Fire.Soul
Chieftain
I was HIGHLY addicted to Huayna. Very useful financial trait + Quechua rush + Terrace for its fantastic culture bonuses that got my cities expanding borders early on without having to build useless monuments.
Recently fell in love with Elizabeth though.. Lol. At least I kept the Financial...
Recently fell in love with Elizabeth though.. Lol. At least I kept the Financial...
50_dollar_bag
Imitation Louis Vuitton
I kind of see where you're coming from, I can spend ages looking at the leader selection screen trying to think of who to choose, looking at traits, UU's and UB's so I've give up and just choose random leader at then get into the game and am unhappy with the choice 
.
If it comes down to it though my favourites are probably anyone with the Charismatic trait. Namely Brennus and Napolean, they've got my my best domination scores 90000+ points
.
.If it comes down to it though my favourites are probably anyone with the Charismatic trait. Namely Brennus and Napolean, they've got my my best domination scores 90000+ points
.IbnKhaldun
Chieftain
I used to be "addicted" to playing as Mansa Musa. Partly because 14th century Mali interested me but also because he has two of the best traits in the game. Not to mention a strong UU and UB.
After a while though winning by tech-mongering became somewhat routine. So I tried to win in different manners and at different times in the game. This, of course, prompted experimentation with different players. I think the best example might be playing with (Warlords and BtS version) Cyrus. His incredible early UU and STRONG military traits demand early expansion and war to take advantage of your comparative advantage.
After a while though winning by tech-mongering became somewhat routine. So I tried to win in different manners and at different times in the game. This, of course, prompted experimentation with different players. I think the best example might be playing with (Warlords and BtS version) Cyrus. His incredible early UU and STRONG military traits demand early expansion and war to take advantage of your comparative advantage.
Fookison
Chieftain
Like some others in this thread, I like to use the various leaders based on the type of game I want to play. So, no real fav. well, perhaps I do tend to lean on Augustus quite often......
Mellian
.......
Hence why I just create my own custom leader. 
-mellian
-mellian
Quildavyr
Man of sick jokes!
How can i create a leader and a civ?I want put myself in the game,and my people
Quildavyr
Man of sick jokes!
I am playing now as Boudica of Romans.And i am losing it
Elros
Paranoid Android
Not so much a leader addiction as a civ addiction.
HRE! I used to think it was impossible to play without rathaus' and landskenhchue or however the hell you spell it.
So now I force myself to play random with unrestricted leaders and adapt my play style to fit. Although when you get an imperialistic leader on an always peace OCC it's not so much adapting playstyle as breaking down and crying.
HRE! I used to think it was impossible to play without rathaus' and landskenhchue or however the hell you spell it.
So now I force myself to play random with unrestricted leaders and adapt my play style to fit. Although when you get an imperialistic leader on an always peace OCC it's not so much adapting playstyle as breaking down and crying.
BYC
Warlord
- Joined
- Sep 16, 2006
- Messages
- 206
I think I've played Shaka and Fredrick the most out of all the leaders.
Shaka's awesome combos can be really addictive.
Fredrick had the traits and starting techs that I liked the best out of the existing Philosophical leaders at the time. I liked Saladin a lot in vanilla, but the trait changes completely screwed him over. I don't remember if Fredrick was Philosophical in vanilla, but I played him a whole lot in Warlords. Pericles is definitely cutting into the Philosophical leader pie for me, so he might be taking over soon.
I've tried to use Isabella on and off, but I always get really frustated by her combos. If I go early rush, the economy goes to crap, even with a shrine. If I play the build game, I still get surpassed in tech even though I'm doing every thing right. It really puzzles me.
In BtS, I've been playing a lot of Bootycall, Charlemagne, Pericles, and Justinian. Boudica just annoys me since everything else other than her traits are horrible, and they don't combo well at all. And with the improved AI for war, rushing with her doesn't seem to work out as well as it used to. Charlemagne is a beast. I have never finished badly with him. I always dominate the game when I play him. For some reason, my tech and economy are solid with him, and of course, the Rathus and Landsknecht just rule everything. My Pericles seems to have bad luck, as I can't ever seem to find metal at all, but otherwise, he's a powerhouse. Justinian I play like Charlemagne, but he's not as dominating.
Shaka's awesome combos can be really addictive.
Fredrick had the traits and starting techs that I liked the best out of the existing Philosophical leaders at the time. I liked Saladin a lot in vanilla, but the trait changes completely screwed him over. I don't remember if Fredrick was Philosophical in vanilla, but I played him a whole lot in Warlords. Pericles is definitely cutting into the Philosophical leader pie for me, so he might be taking over soon.
I've tried to use Isabella on and off, but I always get really frustated by her combos. If I go early rush, the economy goes to crap, even with a shrine. If I play the build game, I still get surpassed in tech even though I'm doing every thing right. It really puzzles me.
In BtS, I've been playing a lot of Bootycall, Charlemagne, Pericles, and Justinian. Boudica just annoys me since everything else other than her traits are horrible, and they don't combo well at all. And with the improved AI for war, rushing with her doesn't seem to work out as well as it used to. Charlemagne is a beast. I have never finished badly with him. I always dominate the game when I play him. For some reason, my tech and economy are solid with him, and of course, the Rathus and Landsknecht just rule everything. My Pericles seems to have bad luck, as I can't ever seem to find metal at all, but otherwise, he's a powerhouse. Justinian I play like Charlemagne, but he's not as dominating.
Bandobras Took
Emperor
Roosevelt. Lots of cities, lots of Wonders.
I got totally addicted to Willem in BTS, because so far he's the one I'm most succesful with and some of the strategies I'm less good at (warmongering, for instance, I need to drop a level to play those games and all the aspects but conquest become too easy) I haven't translated and adapted too well to the BTS features yet.
Previously I wasn't so loyal to a civ/leader. I changed civ/leaders depending on the kind of games I wanted to play (I liked Isabella, Elizabeth and Augustus especially).
But in BTS I find it very very hard to give up Willem, the only one I managed to win on Noble with. I won at domination with Augustus once, but had to drop to warlord level for it (the shame, I used to play mostly Prince since Vanilla) and on Noble once Boudicca destroyed me so badly (10 turns after I finally got iron, she sent massive stacks against that city, seized it and then proceed to wipe me out of existence) that I didn't dare play Augustus again.
Previously I wasn't so loyal to a civ/leader. I changed civ/leaders depending on the kind of games I wanted to play (I liked Isabella, Elizabeth and Augustus especially).
But in BTS I find it very very hard to give up Willem
, the only one I managed to win on Noble with. I won at domination with Augustus once, but had to drop to warlord level for it (the shame, I used to play mostly Prince since Vanilla) and on Noble once Boudicca destroyed me so badly (10 turns after I finally got iron, she sent massive stacks against that city, seized it and then proceed to wipe me out of existence) that I didn't dare play Augustus again.
Common Sensei
Warlord
- Joined
- Nov 2, 2005
- Messages
- 262
Lincoln, Willem, Pericles, Napoleon and Frederick.
As you can probably guess, I like Philospohical, Charismatic, Creative, and Organized.
As you can probably guess, I like Philospohical, Charismatic, Creative, and Organized.
Grimz101
King
If i am not a Financel civilization i feel depressed 
Similar threads
