[BTS] Leader Tier List Comparison

[Gwaja]

I've been watching some YouTube content on Civ 4 more often lately, and found that we have 2 distinctively different opinions on how one would rank all the leaders in this game.

1st: I am not sure if this person also is an active member of this forum, and if you are, I would like an opportunity to ask, in more detail, if his playing strictly on earth maps at marathon speed (which I never play on that setting) has anything to do with his conclusion about certain questionable leaders being placed in tiers I find very difficult to agree with.

Huayna Capac in B tier, Ramses and Hatty at the very bottom tier, while placing Tokugawa and Churchill at the top S tier? I don't think I have ever found someone in this forum with similar opinions here.

So if you are here, please entertain me. ^_^

2nd: @Henrik75's list, which I generally agree with, for the most part. except minor details on whether one would be better suited in A tier instead of B tier and vice versa. But nothing as drastic as Hatty/Ramses and Toku.

Moderator Action: Moved to General....cheers Ms. Gwaja - lymond

 

[sylvanllewelyn]

This belongs to "General Discussion". Moderators, would you please move this thread over there? Thanks.

I disagree with Henrik's list based on his own stated criteria of "deity fractal". Starting techs are very important for deity and he did not weigh this factor enough.

 

[jnebbe]

placing Tokugawa and Churchill at the top S tier?

He must love riflemen!

 

[Gwaja]

@lymond

^_^

This belongs to "General Discussion". Moderators, would you please move this thread over there? Thanks.

I disagree with Henrik's list based on his own stated criteria of "deity fractal". Starting techs are very important for deity and he did not weigh this factor enough.

I don't completely agree in terms of minor positioning, but overall I find it hard to disagree with. I also believe he did take starting techs into consideration.

Since you say you disagree, I am curious to know where you would disagree. I am only talking broad view in terms of generally great or mediocre leaders, not minor positioning.

 

[drewisfat]

Both Romans are S tier. Praetorians = OP.

 

[Gwaja]

Both Romans are S tier. Praetorians = OP.

DREW! Where have you been? ^_^ I am back to making more maps

Romans a solid A tier for me. Still very good though.

Now... I know how you feel about Toku... fair enough... what of Ramses and Hatty and Churchill?

 

[Noble Zarkon]

Both Romans are S tier. Praetorians = OP.

They are incredibly strong but it's a long way off the beaten path to IW so I think A tier is fine.

 

[Fippy]

Good comedy that ranking
HC is in his own category on top, sadly.

For others there are so many factors, HoF i.e. would prolly rank Hatty & Ramsy next. And Darius?
Then again WC are so strong in most games.

Without UU cheese i would rank Gandhi second, he has fast workers but i mean rush with cheese

 

[Noble Zarkon]

Good comedy that ranking

Yep - Immortals aren't very strong lol.

 

[Gwaja]

Good comedy that ranking
HC is in his own category on top, sadly.

For others there are so many factors, HoF i.e. would prolly rank Hatty & Ramsy next. And Darius?
Then again WC are so strong in most games.

Without UU cheese i would rank Gandhi second, he has fast workers but i mean rush with cheese

Oh yeah he ranked Gandhi really low too hmmm... but somehow Asoka is so much better....? And good ol Burger King is somehow better than Ram and Hatty...? Really interesting that one.

 

[elmurcis]

WvO always feels a bit like "cheating" on some specific map type(s) Adding 50% boost to otherwise "meh" tiles. Together with quick access to "Ocean Bridges" (my favorite own civ term).
Toku on other hand is perfect leader for eco-lovers. "Settle in face" and just develop behind and wait for effective counter-attack time without diplo damage

 

[drewisfat]

Look I love war chariots I do. But most of the time I don't get pasture resources and can't justify the risk of rushing AH. And then the one game I do get pigs and rush AH, horses are nowhere to be found. The stars align maybe 20% of the time. Iron on the other hand? Going to have iron or be able to acquire it north of 90% of the time when you factor in that both Romans are IMP. Self-teching IW is still stupid with Rome and that's where people go wrong. Just push to construction and trade for IW. Qs and WCs obsolete to spearmen. Praets obsolete to infantry. The Romans are the best civ on pangaea because Praets wipe the map. HC only trumps the Romans when you consider fractals, because of the amazing barb defense and FIN.
@Fippy HoF-wise WCs/immortals straight up aren't viable on std/normal. I believe Romans have been better than HC ever since the AGG AI worker stealing trick was discovered, because HC benefits much less from that compared to everyone else. Praets are the best unit for boosting power rating, which has capitulation implications.

 

[PPQ_Purple]

Personally I think it is a mistake to judge a leader by looking at their civ. The unrestricted leaders option exists for a reason after all. All these "rankings" produce is a tier list of civs more than leaders. And to me that is simply missing the point.

 

[pi-r8]

Normally I'd make a comment like "it depends on settings, it depends on the map, it depends on whether your want reliability or a high score, blah blah blah..."
But then I saw he picked Churchill as his overall best leader and uh... no. That's wrong. just... no. I don't care who you pick but not Churchill.

Personally I think it is a mistake to judge a leader by looking at their civ. The unrestricted leaders option exists for a reason after all. All these "rankings" produce is a tier list of civs more than leaders. And to me that is simply missing the point.

Agreed with this. The leader is not the civ.

 

[Gwaja]

@drewisfat

All I can say is that Egypt does NOT belong in the bottom of the barrel. I am not so hot on Immortals, but War Chariots I like. Maybe not as much as Praetorians though.

@pi-r8

Churchill... I was really seriously lost there....

 

[Fippy]

@Fippy HoF-wise WCs/immortals straight up aren't viable on std/normal.

Now you see me confused, i did WC rush on deity normal speed plenty times back then.

 

[drewisfat]

I didn't mean to get into the weeds, but in bringing up the HoF I assume you mean how competitive it is to topple a record. I don't see chariots clearing the map, unless it's a smaller map or a slower speed. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe they can still stomp over a few AIs with metal. But if they're not clearing the map then it's an early snowball argument, and I think HC makes an inherently better early snowball argument. Praets can clear the map. I think that longer term approach, and settling your own cities with IMP, became much stronger when it was discovered how AGG AI lets you easily (by HoF standards) steal multiple workers. I did some theorycrafting on a one in a million game where Auggie could BC conquest. And when I finally had the stars align I threw the game completely by overlooking that my target could bribe someone on me. Haven't tried since - am still crying about it. I hate the HoF.

 

[BornInCantaloup]

Praetorians > War Chariots > Quechuas, maybe we should tell the HoF guys about this find

 

[ArchGhost]

I only watched about 20-30 minutes of Henrik's when he put it out.

From what I recall his criteria are idiosyncratic (not giving much weight to starting techs but stopping mid-thought to argue UUs ARE super relevant, despite the fact only certain civ's uniques are really even impactful in standard meta?) and he massively overrates the impact of EXP, seemingly swapping the roles/impact of EXP and IMP. Look, I like Pacal too, he has a great overall kit, but EXP is the weakest thing he has going for him (Myst = early border pops and SH failgold even on high difficulty, Myst + Mining makes for good early wonder play like Oracle gambit or simply to have fast Masonry to hookup stone/marble). If Pacal was CRE instead of EXP and thus has something other than Myst as his other tech, he'd be crazy good instead of just really good.

However Henrik is a good player and what works for him works for him just like AZ back in the day, and he regularly shows he can hang, so I am not inclined to discount his list much considering the general picture we've all come to realize over time: the fact that HC is just broken, the truly terrible picks are always the same 3-5, and everything else in the middle is largely up to preference and game settings. And his list shows a proper bell curve, with few at the extremes and well populated middle tiers as opposed to the train wreck of the first list.

Did have a chuckle at where he placed Charlie (I did not catch why he's so high) and Justin, though I know he placed Justin so high solely because of the Cataphract...which is way worse than the Cuirassier, Justin's SPI trait is no better than the other SPI leader's SPI trait, and Byzantium's techs are worse than a lot of other leaders.

 

[sylvanllewelyn]

Leader and Civilisation should not be separated. Otherwise "financial best, protective worst, the end".

Hall of Fame are ideal maps and should be disregarded.

Neither Henrik nor Gwaja fully explained what best leader means. If the goal is to win in the fewest number of turns with reasonable probability of success, then war chariots or praetorians are great. If the goal is to win with the highest probability, then dog soldiers are not bad.

Unique buildings are underweighted in both rankings.

Justinian should not be ranked high but cataphracts and cuirassiers aren't comparable because they are acquired and used differently. I think of cataphracts as belonging to the "metal casting" family of unique units, similar to the Chu-Ko-Nu or the musket replacements.