Leader Discussion - Simón Bolívar

[disjointaccount]

Sorry this one took a while, life has been busy. But it's time for Simón Bolívar.
His leader ability is El Libertador, which is a three-parter:

• Gain 1 War Support on all Wars
• Upon conquering a Settlement for the first time, can purchase 1 Constructible for free
• Unrest does not prevent purchasing.

His attributes are Expansionist and Militaristic, giving him access to the Farmers Market and Military Aid endeavors, along with events for attribute points upon researching Masonry and Irrigation, and Authority (per this post).
He has no starting bias.
Playing as Simón Bolívar unlocks Inca (otherwise unlocked by having 3 settlements with at least 3 mountains each) and Spain (otherwise unlocked by recapturing a lost settlement) in the Exploration Age, and France (otherwise unlocked by improving 3 Wine) and Mexico (otherwise unlocked by having 3 distant lands settlements in desert or tropical terrain) in the Modern Age.
As an AI leader, his agenda is Cornerstone of Freedom - Likes the leader with the least Unhappy Settlements. Dislikes the leader with the most Unhappy Settlements.

So what are everyone's thoughts? Likes/dislikes? Fun strategies? Good civs to pair him with?

 

[Leucarum]

The free purchaseable isn't the worst, but it isn't huge.Is there still the ability to buy a project for free if you are playing the Mughals and capture a city?

The war support is fine, nice that it works in aggressive wars, but just +1 gives a bit of Tubman envy...

I guess his best feature is purchasing through unrest since it can help sustain a millitary campaign if you can quickly buy more troops in captured territory. It's hardly game breaking though...

Is this the game's worst leader?

 

[Chefofrats]

Is this the game's worst leader?

He certainly seems so to me. I've never felt any urge to play as him. A minor, largely indirect (except the tiny direct +1 combat strength) bonus to conquest? Zero advantage in peacetime? Meh.

 

[pjotroos]

Worst one? Nowhere near for me. Sometimes you know you want to have a game with wars in, and he's a solid pick for one. The 1 War Support is not massive, but still neat. I'll always try for GoAN and I'll always pick that military attribute, and so I appreciate getting that extra cushion with him.

But the other two parts work really well in unison for pillaging your way through enemy cities. You can raze every single building and improvement, conquer the settlement and immediately turn it back into a productive town. That's tons of free gold, culture, science and healing, and it pairs incredibly well with Bulgaria. There is even an infinite production & growth version of that game where you conquer a few cities after pillaging, do a free repair and return them in a peace deal, so you can have them nice and ready for the next round of pillaging in 10 turns time.

And yeah, sure, none of that works in a 100% peaceful game, but it's the wars you get forced into. You always have an option to opt out from peace.

 

[WillK96]

Is this the game's worst leader?

Probably not, but the +1 war support on all wars is ridiculously underpowered, especially compared to someone like Tubman who get +5 on all defensive wars. Something like +3 would be appropriate.

 

[Leucarum]

But the other two parts work really well in unison for pillaging your way through enemy cities. You can raze every single building and improvement, conquer the settlement and immediately turn it back into a productive town. That's tons of free gold, culture, science and healing, and it pairs incredibly well with Bulgaria. There is even an infinite production & growth version of that game where you conquer a few cities after pillaging, do a free repair and return them in a peace deal, so you can have them nice and ready for the next round of pillaging in 10 turns time.

That one's fair. I really didn't enjoy pillage gameplay in Civ6 even when it was the strongest way to play, it just felt like a gimmick. Unsurprised that I didn't consider it.

He still gets my vote for the leader I'd least want to play.

 

[Manpanzee]

I’d really like to see this guy gain “unrest does not prevent specializing towns”. He could certainly use the buff, and being able to immediately go Urban Center and buy something interesting just feels like something he “should” be able to do.

 

[A_Most_Foolish_Fool]

I’d really like to see this guy gain “unrest does not prevent specializing towns”. He could certainly use the buff, and being able to immediately go Urban Center and buy something interesting just feels like something he “should” be able to do.

This is a fantastic idea. I feel like this plus an additional war support on all wars would help him to function as the devs likely intended.

 

[pjotroos]

Probably not, but the +1 war support on all wars is ridiculously underpowered, especially compared to someone like Tubman who get +5 on all defensive wars. Something like +3 would be appropriate.

While this sounds like a nice, meaty bonus when playing as Bolivar, it sounds like a nightmare for playing against him. Xerxes and Amina have situational +3 damage only and they're already a menace as an adversary. Tubman's +5 only triggers if you declare against her directly; you can still drag her into a war sans a bonus by declaring on her ally instead. How do you outplay the damage difference and happiness hit from the flat +3 at all times?

If that part of his bonus was to be fiddled with, I'd replace the flat +1 with something like "doubles combat bonus from positive war support and reduces happiness hit from negative war support", but I think the +1 WS is a side bonus; the main part of his kit is getting to use conquered settlements immediately (and hence, I'm much bigger fan of @Manpanzee's suggestion).

 

[uppi]

I agree that the +1 war support is maybe a bit weak, but I really like is ability to buy stuff in towns with unrest. That can really keep an offensive going. Buy a few fresh extra units which hold of the counterattack while the injured units heal and then you can go for the next settlement. Also, you don't need to leave as much defense behind, because you can emergency-buy it.

And in modern, you can buy free rail stations once you unlocked them. So you can also leave a rail network behind for reinforcements and defense. And this sets you up nicely for an economic victory as well (in the unlikely case in which you don't win a military victory first).

He is not the strongest leader on his own, though, so he needs some support from the civs to pull that off. Economic bonuses (to get the gold to spend) and military bonuses are what you are looking for.

But I agree that if you are not into conquering that much, he will not offer much to you (But this applies also to other leaders).

 

[TheMarshmallowBear]

Honestly giving him a discount to War Support would go a long way. Imagine if you had to spend half as much Influence to boost support.

I also think the free purchase is kinda meh, doesn't it only apply to Buildings? I can't relaly imagine having that much use out of that tbh.

 

[tedhebert]

I don’t know if he’s the worst, but he is the last leader I have yet to play a game with, so this is telling because I have them all. I played all the alternates leaders before him… Will get around to him because I’m a completionist, but he just doesn’t interest me atm… hoping for a boost on him just as I got on napoleon rev which I am now finally playing

 

[disjointaccount]

Whoops, I forgot to actually post my thoughts. I mostly just agree with what's already been said - I don't think he's outright bad (+1 war support and the ability to buy reinforcements on the front lines are noticeable and impactful abilities), but he just feels a little weak next to leaders with more substantial kits.