Leader choices for large empires/domination win

[Floating Pants]

My latest game that I posted here involved a cultural victory, noble, Ramesses II. I was successful, so I am considering stepping back up to prince (I did play on prince while ago but dropped back to noble when I stopped playing). I desire a domination victory, and for the fun of it, a large map. I'll break it down.

Map size: Large

Desired victory: Domination

Map type: Terra

Difficulty: Noble or Prince

Playing style: Very aggressive and expansive (not traits, just how I'd play)

And as a catch, I'd like to go without founding any religions. I become to attached to them in most of my games, with my economy revolving around shrines and missionaries. This means it's really going to be a harder game than I'm used to, so I'm thinking noble again. I'll need a strongly militaristic civ suited for well finance with large empires.

So... what leader choices do y'all think?

 

[Kadazzle]

Easily Julius Caesar. Best UU, and nice traits to run a large and militaristic empire.

 

[Noogai]

Someone with org-trait?

 

[Riflin'Joe]

Have you used the Specialist Economy much? Its good for warring and you can support a large empire by dropping the research slider down to 0%. I'd recommend trying out Lincoln or Suleiman: philo leaders with a warmongering trait.

Not so sure about the terra map - it will make domination slower as it requires a fair military commitment to colonise the new world at a time when you'd be looking to make big military advances. I'd go for Pangaea or big and small.

 

[Fluroscent]

Julius or Darius are probably safe bets. Ignore the new world and just conquer most of the AI and fill out.

 

[AbsoluteZero]

Have you used the Specialist Economy much? Its good for warring and you can support a large empire by dropping the research slider down to 0%. I'd recommend trying out Lincoln or Suleiman: philo leaders with a warmongering trait.

Not so sure about the terra map - it will make domination slower as it requires a fair military commitment to colonise the new world at a time when you'd be looking to make big military advances. I'd go for Pangaea or big and small.

Specialist economy is not that great for warring. You go broke because you have no cottages and possibly only internal trade routes because you're at war with your neighbor.

Maybe if you make it to currency and run 2 merchants and do a trade mission, but that's fairly late and you probably missed the best window for rushing.

With a large army in enemy territory you still go broke even with a 0% slider. Or at least you should, if not you probably don't have enough troops.

I recommend Hannibal or other financial civ. Wang kon is also good because of his catapults.

 

[i_imperator]

Any leader will do really, it all depends on your play style or use of UU's. In my experience JC, Monty,the mongols,England,Mali and hannibal are all solid. Heck i've even gotten domination as ramesses a couple of times. Ragnar is pretty good for water maps aswell.

 

[Gwynnja]

My latest game that I posted here involved a cultural victory, noble, Ramesses II. I was successful, so I am considering stepping back up to prince (I did play on prince while ago but dropped back to noble when I stopped playing). I desire a domination victory, and for the fun of it, a large map. I'll break it down.

Map size: Large

Desired victory: Domination

Map type: Terra

Difficulty: Noble or Prince

Playing style: Very aggressive and expansive (not traits, just how I'd play)

And as a catch, I'd like to go without founding any religions. I become to attached to them in most of my games, with my economy revolving around shrines and missionaries. This means it's really going to be a harder game than I'm used to, so I'm thinking noble again. I'll need a strongly militaristic civ suited for well finance with large empires.

So... what leader choices do y'all think?

I'd suggest playing the map without having a pre-determined victory condition.

Someone with org-trait?

on noble or prince, organized is next to useless.

 

[babar]

Specialist economy is not that great for warring. You go broke because you have no cottages and possibly only internal trade routes because you're at war with your neighbor.

I recommend Hannibal or other financial civ.

If you consider a cottaged capital legitimate within the definition of a SE, then you shouldn't run out of money. It is important to get currency quickly for trade routes and building wealth though.

I don't think financial is great for an early warmongering game since cottages don't help build troops, and take a while to pay off compared to specialists. My warmongering game really took off in the mid levels when I discovered the SE.

I'd suggest playing the map without having a pre-determined victory condition.

on noble or prince, organized is next to useless.

I sometimes like to play with a predetermined victory condition myself. It can be more fun that way.

It's true that ORG is better on the higher levels, but I think "next to useless" is an exaggeration. I think it's about 10% worse on prince than deity (may be wrong about this though).

 

[michmbk]

Kublai Khan or Asoka could also be good options. Asoka is really one of my favorite warmongers, with a solid UU and solid traits for warring.

Kublai for keshiks, obviously, and then each conquered city doesn't need a monument for border pops.

 

[Zx Zero Zx]

Zara or the Ottomans for a mid game war. JC or Darius for early.

 

[babar]

Cyrus is often forgotten among warmongers these days. As a Persian he gets overshadowed by Darius (with good reason), but he's a better starter (CHA and IMP are great early game traits), and second to none as a warmonger.

 

[Floating Pants]

Alright, thanks.

Been getting Julius Ceaser a lot. The Roman UU is really superior, but I'm not too impressed by the forum. Organized trait is OK, but imperialistic is quite great.

I've been taking a look at Charlemagne, even though no one has suggested him. The Holy Roman UB is very great to support city maintenance. Only downside is that it is a very heavy cost for building in the medieval era and the protective trait is useless for this style. Not too impressed by the landschnekt, not really a big pikeman user.

People have said Kublai Khan a few. I really like his traits with there being creative as well as aggressive, giving my cities culture without building monuments. I like the Keshik, and the Ger might come in handing if I spam them.

Also a lot of Suleiman. I'm not too impressed by it's UU, not much better than the regular musketman. But stacking some other promotions on top of that makes it pretty damn sweet. Hammam is a good building, I can build that alone for health and happiness.

Gotten Hannibal a bit. Don't really like the Numidian Cavalry at all, but the Cothon is decent.

Of the ones I have just listed, I like Charlemange, Kublai Khan, and Suleiman. I also might want to reconsider the map, looking back at my previous games on these types of maps. Just when I'm going for domination or conquest wins on maps large and up I simply abandon the game by the modern era. So... maybe pangaea or terra on standard or small instead.

 

[dalamb]

The Ottoman UU is at its best when you're attacking pre-gunpowder civs with them -- +25% versus anything you're likely to meet (archery, melee, mounted). So perhaps you need to beeline gunpowder if you go with Sulieman?

 

[plasmacannon]

yes. gunpowder units ignore walls, so, it mat seem like only +25%, but, add on another 2 promotions from barracks, Vass+Theo+1GG, and you can specialize them into city killers.
Janisarry= +25% vs Archers +25% melee +25% mounted add to it +45% City Attack2 and you have one good unit to try to deal with LBs. Everyone has difficulties with LBs. Jans just have an advantage.

Also, I didn't see Victoria mentioned specifically.
She's IMP/FIN with an Excellent UB, and UU.
Early settler advantage + gold for troops and empire + lots of GGs from all of that fighting.
Large maps won't be won entirely in the early years.
Having an rifleman UU works well.

 

[shyuhe]

Janissaries cannot pick up CR promotions so it's not that good for city offense without siege support. They're great stack cover though.

Any leader with an early UU will help you achieve your domination goal. Hammurabi also has pretty good traits with aggressive (barracks + combat I) + organized (cheap courthouses)

 

[Zx Zero Zx]

The Ottoman UU is at its best when you're attacking pre-gunpowder civs with them -- +25% versus anything you're likely to meet (archery, melee, mounted). So perhaps you need to beeline gunpowder if you go with Sulieman?

I often Lib Steel so I can conquer a continent with Muskets and Cannons before I can even build Rifles.

 

[Aken420]

Ragnar can also be a great leader if u can use him ............ not only will his land units be powerful(Thanks 2 aggresive) ....... but also the naval power will be better (His UB) n his financial trait will give u scientific , commercial (n if u want espoinage ) advantage