Leader Tier List/Ranking/Review Thread

[Leucarum]

Alright, thanks. Makes sense. I never took to that playstyle.

Me neither. Settlement limit is the best new feature in Civ7

 

[mad hadder]

View attachment 750587
Rankings are based on three-age single player games. Leaders within each tier are just in alphabetical order.

I am considering both general power level and potential for combos/specific victory conditions. E.g., Friedrich Baroque is easily D-tier by overall power level, but he has to get some credit for his unique ability to turbo-rush the Modern culture victory.

Rankings are mostly but not entirely based on power potential in the hands of expert-level players. Tubman still gets a bump for being the ultimate noob security blanket.

Three out of the bottom four are DLC leaders... ouch!

@Manpanzee can you clarify why Pachacuti and Ashoka (production) aren’t ranked as high? Augustus also seems very strong to me. You’re one of the best Civ 7 players on here, so I really trust your judgment on this, but those three seem really powerful to me and you don’t rate them highly.

 

[uppi]

How come you don't like Teach? He generally seems to be regarded as one of the most fun DLC leaders so far, from what I've seen.

In my opinion, his Antiquity age is just too weak to justify any high ranking. In my last game with him, I captured some Independent powers ships, but had no real use for them because all the AIs I was at war with were on the other side of the continent. And even for independent power defense, his ability became a liability: I captured ships I did not want, but you cannot delete damaged units. So I had to heal them first before I could delete them while paying inflated maintenance costs. So his Antiquity age can also be quite bad on the fun scale.

And even on suitable maps, ships are not that useful in Antiquity. After the Carthage nerf, you will have a hard time using ships for more than a bit of harassment and distraction.

Strength and fun massively picks up in the later ages, but you are always sort of playing catch-up. And even there you can be at quite a disadvantage if your opponents do not settle on the coast for whatever reason.

 

[Manpanzee]

@Manpanzee can you clarify why Pachacuti and Ashoka (production) aren’t ranked as high? Augustus also seems very strong to me. You’re one of the best Civ 7 players on here, so I really trust your judgment on this, but those three seem really powerful to me and you don’t rate them highly.

I place average at roughly top of C-tier/bottom of B-tier, so the majority of leaders in B-tier should be considered "above average" by my rankings. A lot of these groups are pretty close together, too. Pachacuti and Augustus are both in the top half of my B-tier, and I wouldn't disagree with anyone who wanted to put them in A-tier (same goes for Ben Franklin and Tecumseh).

Ashoka WC is kind of a weird one. I think his abilities are inharmonious in a way that makes him less than the sum of his parts. If you have enough happiness to gain much of a production buff, you probably don't need the extra celebration triggers. And if you're overextended enough to really benefit from the celebration triggers, you probably aren't getting much of a production buff. Which mostly just leaves him with an OK production buff and an OK military buff.

I also think that "settlements not founded by you" abilities are generally all under-tuned in the current state of the game. It would be a different story if the game didn't "forget" founding history on era reset, and I wouldn't be surprised if the way it works now isn't actually intended.

 

[NoCure]

S Tier:
Augustus - With the new soft limits on cities/buildings and the ability to get tier 1 buildings in towns, he is stronger than ever. Would be the strongest leader in the game if his ability applied to unique improvements too.
Himiko, High Shaman - One of the most underrated leaders, especially for Antiquity where the cultural legacy path is the most challenging. Very efficient buildings, as her influence and happiness buildings double as culture buildings. Also is capable of ICS.
Ashoka, World Renouncer - The best for ICS.

A Tier:
Himiko, Queen of Wa - Her free support actions peak in Antiquity, but that is when you want them, while her unique endeavor is strong all game long.
Xerxes, the Achaemenid - Culture and goal and an extra trade route in Antiquity are incredibly useful, when resources are scarce. Unique improvements are very strong, he only makes them better.
Xerxes, King of Kings - An extra settlement limit in Antiquity is a huge help, and he fits in very well with all the aggressive Civs.
Ashoka, World Conqueror: Another great leader for aggressive Civs, you can run persistent Celebrations with enough enemies so that your overall happiness is irrelevant.
Tecumseh - Formerly S-tier and the strongest leader prior to the City State nerf, still is quite strong.
Pachacuti - Moving up with the food changes, formerly quite weak.
Isabella - Very map dependent but can have explosive starts and generally has a strong start. Pairs very well with many Civs, does not depend on Civ choice much (though she is stronger with a few of them).

B Tier:
Ibn Battuta - Once capable of the strongest games, he was horribly hurt by the nerf to the attribute trees. Could run through the Diplomacy tree and accumulate massive buffs to all yields, sadly no more. Now he works decently with a wide variety of Civs and has a lot of flexibility. His unique endeavor remains rubbish, however.
Ada Lovelace - Peaks in Antiquity but that is when you want good bonuses. The problem is, the bonuses just aren't that strong.
Confucius - Similar to Ada, but more consistent. Shines with a few Civs.
Catherine the Great - Civ dependent but can be strong.
Charlemagne - I rate him lower than I think others do because I favor ranged units on Deity. My cavalry still seem to die to opponents' cavalry. I'm probably not using him right.

C Tier:
Amina - I just can't figure out how to use her bonuses effectively. They aren't terrible, they just never seem to help.
Benjamin Franklin - I find his bonuses decent but for some reason can never get the AI to support the extra endeavors.
Hatshepsut - Shone for a hot moment while Egypt was strong, but is both map and Civ dependent, and the hurt to multiple buildings hurt her as well.
Napoleon, Revolutionary - Can be tons of fun when you get that early commander. Very Civ dependent.
Jose Rizal - I like the unique events but hate having a small government in Exploration. Can have a very good Antiquity though, which is the most important Age.

D Tier:
Harriet Tubman - In general, I want to declare war on the AI and not the other way around. The espionage nerf wrecked her.
Friedrich, Baroque - I find the Great Work bonus to be meaningless, because I sandbag my Great Works to extend the Ages. And I don't like infantry.
Friedrich, Oblique - Merit is good, but I still hate infantry. Very Civ dependent.
Lakshmibai - In general, I don't want to incorporate City States. If one settles where I'd like to settle, I can kill it, or wait for the AI to suzerain it and take it over. For a LOT of influence and time, you get a settlement and a few troops. Pass.
Lafayette - Garbage, expensive endeavor. Very Civ dependent.
Napoleon, Emperor - Continental System is bad.

Not Enough Experience:
Edward Teach
Genghis Khan
Machiavelli
Sayyida al Hurra
Simón Bolívar
Trung Trac

 

[Colorblind Chameleon]

This is my take on the general power levels of leaders when playing against Deity AI, usually on a standard or large Continents map with no mementos. The leaders in each tier are loosely ordered from strongest to weakest.

 

[Navelgazer]

I'm not an expert in what counts as "strong," and I play on Immortal difficulty. So this is just my Tier List of how much I personally enjoy the leaders (though being able to actually do something with their UA is going to play a big part in that, of course.)

S-Tier:
Himiko, High Shaman: Culture is paramount in a game based around Civ Uniques buried in their own specific trees, and the science malus is so easy to work aroudn that you (or at least I) barely even notice it.
Ashoka, World Renouncer: Basically knocks your difficulty setting down a peg in effect. Never looks particularly fun to me, but the ease with which he plays is always a good time in practice.
Xerxes, Achaemenid: Somewhat civ-dependent, in that you want to make the most of Unique Improvements to get all you can out of him, but that's not really a big limiting factor here.

A-Tier:
Amina: One that I surely rank a lot more highly than others would, but she fits into my playstyle perfectly - economic bonuses and defensive capabilities. Not flashy, but I always have a fun time with her.
Himiko, Queen of Wa: On a good day, probably the single strongest leader in the game, but a "good day" is dependent on your neighbors, so isn't fully reliable. Still great, though.
Ada Lovelace: Someday I might try starting her as someone other than Maya. As is, those two go together so well that it's tough for me to imagine one without the other now. So, very fun, but feels very civ-dependent to me. (I've managed Maya into Iceland with her, since Iceland is so easy to unlock, and that's also hilariously fun.)
Tecumseh: Used to be absolutely bananas, Post CS-nerf just very good.
Ashoka, World Conqueror: Not quite as good as his other persona, but still quite strong. I'm just not as into combat as other folks are.
Confucius: Science isn't as important as in previous games, but it's not nothing, either, and a good Confucius game can snowball pretty quickly.
Pachacuti: Basically a more map-dependent Ashoka, World Renouncer. Very solid with Inca, though that's not surprising.

B-Tier:
Isabella: Strong abilities, but between the Natural Wonder and the Coastal Bias, there's never any room in the capitol to build anything.
Catherine: Her abilities are fine - not great, but fine. But the Tundra bias and access to the two best endeavors land her pretty highly regardless.
Hatshepsut: Been on a bit of a ride along with Egypt's fortunes. I don't mind Navigable Rivers, but being so dependent on them knocks her out of A-Tier for me, even though she's a lot of fun.
Lakshmibai: Very niche, which is why she ranks this low, but the niche itself is a blast, which is why she ranks this high. I probably find myself starting more games with her than any other DLC leader (except maybe Ada.)
Edward Teach: Naval Combat is fun, but he's the opposite of versatile.
Augustus: Undeniably good abilities, but desperately uninteresting.
Simon Bolívar: I like the idea of a Militaristic Leader whose big bonus is to maintaining your empire, but I haven't played around with him a ton yet. Worked pretty well in the game I can remember.
Harriet Tubman: Another niche leader, knocked down by the Espionage nerf. Still, as someone who usually plays diplomatically to a fault, it's fun to sometimes play a game of "let's troll everyone!"
Machiavelli: Probably very good for a playstyle that I don't get into very much, but the ability to levy units from wherever is handy in a pinch. +3 Inf doesn't scale that well through the ages, but is nice in Antiquity (less nice since the CS nerf) and the bonus gold from non-supported endeavors is a nice cherry on top but unreliable.
Genghis Khan: Good at what he does, and what he does doesn't interest me.
Trung Trac: I dunno, I just like her. I probably get more use out of the tropical science bonus than anything else, but at least her Unique Commander inspires me to be a bit fightier than I normally would be.
Xerxes, King of Kings: See Genghis Khan.

C-Tier:
Ibn Battuta: The epitome of generalist, so right at the top of C-Tier he goes!
Sayyida al Hurra: Tubman of the Seas! Hilariously niche, but I enjoy this alternate way of designing a Pirate Leader. Probably need more time with her before I can properly rate her.
José Rizal: Would be much lower if not for the fact that I enjoy playing as him for some unknown reason.
Charlemagne: Maybe I've just had bad luck with him, but I've never once managed to get a good start with him for a military campaign. And since that's basically all he does, well... I like him in theory (on the curve of Military leaders, at least) but I've never had as fun a time as I feel like I should.
Napoleon, Revolutionary: Not at all my thing, but ranks a step above his "Emperor" persona because his ability at least does something useful.
Lafayette: Can be fun, but takes its sweet time getting there, plus one of the first leaders to get creamed by the nerfhammer. Kind of a puzzle/challenge to get the most out of him (you have to plan ahead for what civs have Traditions you're going to want all-game-long) which is kind of fun in its own way, but usually the juice isn't worth the squeeze for me.
Ben Franklin: I know he technically has abilities, I've just never felt them make any difference any time i've tried a game with him.
Friedrich, Baroque: This is the Culture one, right? Well, not strong. At all. But I've nonetheless had a fun time with him, so he escapes F-Tier.

F-Tier:
Napoleon, Emperor: Just the opposite of how I want to play, and not very good at it either.
Friedrich, Oblique: This is the Science one, right? Not strong, and also not fun.

 

[Colorblind Chameleon]

I'm not an expert in what counts as "strong," and I play on Immortal difficulty. So this is just my Tier List of how much I personally enjoy the leaders (though being able to actually do something with their UA is going to play a big part in that, of course.)

S-Tier:
Himiko, High Shaman: Culture is paramount in a game based around Civ Uniques buried in their own specific trees, and the science malus is so easy to work aroudn that you (or at least I) barely even notice it.
Ashoka, World Renouncer: Basically knocks your difficulty setting down a peg in effect. Never looks particularly fun to me, but the ease with which he plays is always a good time in practice.
Xerxes, Achaemenid: Somewhat civ-dependent, in that you want to make the most of Unique Improvements to get all you can out of him, but that's not really a big limiting factor here.

A-Tier:
Amina: One that I surely rank a lot more highly than others would, but she fits into my playstyle perfectly - economic bonuses and defensive capabilities. Not flashy, but I always have a fun time with her.
Himiko, Queen of Wa: On a good day, probably the single strongest leader in the game, but a "good day" is dependent on your neighbors, so isn't fully reliable. Still great, though.
Ada Lovelace: Someday I might try starting her as someone other than Maya. As is, those two go together so well that it's tough for me to imagine one without the other now. So, very fun, but feels very civ-dependent to me. (I've managed Maya into Iceland with her, since Iceland is so easy to unlock, and that's also hilariously fun.)
Tecumseh: Used to be absolutely bananas, Post CS-nerf just very good.
Ashoka, World Conqueror: Not quite as good as his other persona, but still quite strong. I'm just not as into combat as other folks are.
Confucius: Science isn't as important as in previous games, but it's not nothing, either, and a good Confucius game can snowball pretty quickly.
Pachacuti: Basically a more map-dependent Ashoka, World Renouncer. Very solid with Inca, though that's not surprising.

B-Tier:
Isabella: Strong abilities, but between the Natural Wonder and the Coastal Bias, there's never any room in the capitol to build anything.
Catherine: Her abilities are fine - not great, but fine. But the Tundra bias and access to the two best endeavors land her pretty highly regardless.
Hatshepsut: Been on a bit of a ride along with Egypt's fortunes. I don't mind Navigable Rivers, but being so dependent on them knocks her out of A-Tier for me, even though she's a lot of fun.
Lakshmibai: Very niche, which is why she ranks this low, but the niche itself is a blast, which is why she ranks this high. I probably find myself starting more games with her than any other DLC leader (except maybe Ada.)
Edward Teach: Naval Combat is fun, but he's the opposite of versatile.
Augustus: Undeniably good abilities, but desperately uninteresting.
Simon Bolívar: I like the idea of a Militaristic Leader whose big bonus is to maintaining your empire, but I haven't played around with him a ton yet. Worked pretty well in the game I can remember.
Harriet Tubman: Another niche leader, knocked down by the Espionage nerf. Still, as someone who usually plays diplomatically to a fault, it's fun to sometimes play a game of "let's troll everyone!"
Machiavelli: Probably very good for a playstyle that I don't get into very much, but the ability to levy units from wherever is handy in a pinch. +3 Inf doesn't scale that well through the ages, but is nice in Antiquity (less nice since the CS nerf) and the bonus gold from non-supported endeavors is a nice cherry on top but unreliable.
Genghis Khan: Good at what he does, and what he does doesn't interest me.
Trung Trac: I dunno, I just like her. I probably get more use out of the tropical science bonus than anything else, but at least her Unique Commander inspires me to be a bit fightier than I normally would be.
Xerxes, King of Kings: See Genghis Khan.

C-Tier:
Ibn Battuta: The epitome of generalist, so right at the top of C-Tier he goes!
Sayyida al Hurra: Tubman of the Seas! Hilariously niche, but I enjoy this alternate way of designing a Pirate Leader. Probably need more time with her before I can properly rate her.
José Rizal: Would be much lower if not for the fact that I enjoy playing as him for some unknown reason.
Charlemagne: Maybe I've just had bad luck with him, but I've never once managed to get a good start with him for a military campaign. And since that's basically all he does, well... I like him in theory (on the curve of Military leaders, at least) but I've never had as fun a time as I feel like I should.
Napoleon, Revolutionary: Not at all my thing, but ranks a step above his "Emperor" persona because his ability at least does something useful.
Lafayette: Can be fun, but takes its sweet time getting there, plus one of the first leaders to get creamed by the nerfhammer. Kind of a puzzle/challenge to get the most out of him (you have to plan ahead for what civs have Traditions you're going to want all-game-long) which is kind of fun in its own way, but usually the juice isn't worth the squeeze for me.
Ben Franklin: I know he technically has abilities, I've just never felt them make any difference any time i've tried a game with him.
Friedrich, Baroque: This is the Culture one, right? Well, not strong. At all. But I've nonetheless had a fun time with him, so he escapes F-Tier.

F-Tier:
Napoleon, Emperor: Just the opposite of how I want to play, and not very good at it either.
Friedrich, Oblique: This is the Science one, right? Not strong, and also not fun.

Have you tried Napoleon, Emperor since his rework? He used to be possibly the worst leader in the game (the trade route sanction was totally useless) but he’s amazing now IMO. He’s possibly the best leader for getting wonders in Antiquity because he gets so much culture and gold so early, plus he’s better at conquering than a lot of the militaristic leaders.

 

[uppi]

Have you tried Napoleon, Emperor since his rework? He used to be possibly the worst leader in the game (the trade route sanction was totally useless) but he’s amazing now IMO. He’s possibly the best leader for getting wonders in Antiquity because he gets so much culture and gold so early, plus he’s better at conquering than a lot of the militaristic leaders.

Yes, and I still rank him at the bottom (but better than before). Definitely not amazing. On Deity, you usually cannot afford to make many enemies in Antiquity. So his bonus is capped at a low level and you need constant influence to maintain it.

 

[disjointaccount]

he’s better at conquering than a lot of the militaristic leaders.

I haven't done the maths but surely you need to have a lot of sanctions going to equal the CS of someone who gets inherent buffs like Genghis or Xerxes plus the equivalent influence spend on war support? Sure you get the culture and gold, but I'm still unconvinced, especially when the other conquest-focused leaders have other aspects of their kit that benefit conquest directly.

 

[Colorblind Chameleon]

Yes, and I still rank him at the bottom (but better than before). Definitely not amazing. On Deity, you usually cannot afford to make many enemies in Antiquity. So his bonus is capped at a low level and you need constant influence to maintain it.

An important caveat about Napoleon is that he’s dependent on map type and size. Obviously, he is safest on larger maps on which the AI rarely wages war in Antiquity. He excels on maps where you can meet all leaders in Antiquity, like Pangaea and the new Shattered Seas. On a continents map, he’s a little iffier, but still B-tier at worst. Say that you are playing on a Standard sized continent map, so you meet 3 leaders in Antiquity (excepting Tonga shenanigans). That’s still +3 combat strength and 15 gold and culture through most of the age.

The influence cost of sanctions is only steep at first. The baseline influence cost of a sanction is 80 for neutral leaders, 40 for unfriendly, and 30 for hostile. But Napoleon gets 50% influence towards sanctions, so the cost is much more reasonable and can potentially get lower than 20 per sanction.

I haven't done the maths but surely you need to have a lot of sanctions going to equal the CS of someone who gets inherent buffs like Genghis or Xerxes plus the equivalent influence spend on war support? Sure you get the culture and gold, but I'm still unconvinced, especially when the other conquest-focused leaders have other aspects of their kit that benefit conquest directly.

Napoleon gets +1 combat strength on land units per sanctioned leader, up to +6. On a standard continents map, we can expect at least +3, which is not difficult to maintain when the other leaders are all unfriendly or hostile (you can afford some war support or city states, but admittedly less than others).

Xerxes gets +3 specifically on units that are attacking outside of his territory, so he will probably perform worse than Napoleon, especially against archer-heavy enemies. Also, his economic bonuses mostly take effect after he captures settlements, whereas Napoleon enjoys piles of gold and culture beforehand.

Genghis gets +5 on cavalry by a commander, which is arguably better than Napoleon’s military as long as you fully lean into it. But strong cavalry and some mostly inconsequential commander tricks are all Genghis gets - he has no economic perks whatsoever.

 

[disjointaccount]

But strong cavalry and some mostly inconsequential commander tricks are all Genghis gets - he has no economic perks whatsoever.

Don't need economic perks if everyone richer than me is dead B)

 

[uppi]

An important caveat about Napoleon is that he’s dependent on map type and size. Obviously, he is safest on larger maps on which the AI rarely wages war in Antiquity. He excels on maps where you can meet all leaders in Antiquity, like Pangaea and the new Shattered Seas. On a continents map, he’s a little iffier, but still B-tier at worst. Say that you are playing on a Standard sized continent map, so you meet 3 leaders in Antiquity (excepting Tonga shenanigans). That’s still +3 combat strength and 15 gold and culture through most of the age.

The influence cost of sanctions is only steep at first. The baseline influence cost of a sanction is 80 for neutral leaders, 40 for unfriendly, and 30 for hostile. But Napoleon gets 50% influence towards sanctions, so the cost is much more reasonable and can potentially get lower than 20 per sanction.



Napoleon gets +1 combat strength on land units per sanctioned leader, up to +6. On a standard continents map, we can expect at least +3, which is not difficult to maintain when the other leaders are all unfriendly or hostile (you can afford some war support or city states, but admittedly less than others).

Xerxes gets +3 specifically on units that are attacking outside of his territory, so he will probably perform worse than Napoleon, especially against archer-heavy enemies. Also, his economic bonuses mostly take effect after he captures settlements, whereas Napoleon enjoys piles of gold and culture beforehand.

Genghis gets +5 on cavalry by a commander, which is arguably better than Napoleon’s military as long as you fully lean into it. But strong cavalry and some mostly inconsequential commander tricks are all Genghis gets - he has no economic perks whatsoever.

First, if you meet 3 leaders and sanction them all, you now have 3 enemies and no ally. Likely, they will unite in their hate for, ally each other and declare war on you. When that happens at -8 Deity disadvantage, you are in for an ugly and costly fight. In addition, the AI is now happy to sanction you, so you are looking at a ton of sanctions.

Second, you have left out the top dogs: Lafayette with a 4-tradition civ will get +4 in Antiquity and it only improves from there. Charlemagne will get +5 on cavalry when celebrating (but he wants to do that all the time), and prints that cavalry for free. If Tecumseh is only at +3, things have gone very wrong for him, and he is usually rolling in much more cash as well.

 

[Colorblind Chameleon]

First, if you meet 3 leaders and sanction them all, you now have 3 enemies and no ally. Likely, they will unite in their hate for, ally each other and declare war on you. When that happens at -8 Deity disadvantage, you are in for an ugly and costly fight. In addition, the AI is now happy to sanction you, so you are looking at a ton of sanctions.

Second, you have left out the top dogs: Lafayette with a 4-tradition civ will get +4 in Antiquity and it only improves from there. Charlemagne will get +5 on cavalry when celebrating (but he wants to do that all the time), and prints that cavalry for free. If Tecumseh is only at +3, things have gone very wrong for him, and he is usually rolling in much more cash as well.

Maybe I’ll have to try Napoleon again on a smaller map and see how it goes. From my experience, the AI rarely declares threatening wars in Antiquity unless the player is especially weak or things get crowded very quickly.

All three of the ‘top dogs’ you mention are much better at conquest than Napoleon is. I consider Tecumseh and Lafayette to be head and shoulders above the rest of the roster even after the nerfs. Napoleon, Emperor is really more of a culture leader at the end of the day.

 

[Krikkit1]

An important caveat about Napoleon is that he’s dependent on map type and size. Obviously, he is safest on larger maps on which the AI rarely wages war in Antiquity. He excels on maps where you can meet all leaders in Antiquity, like Pangaea and the new Shattered Seas. On a continents map, he’s a little iffier, but still B-tier at worst. Say that you are playing on a Standard sized continent map, so you meet 3 leaders in Antiquity (excepting Tonga shenanigans). That’s still +3 combat strength and 15 gold and culture through most of the age.

The influence cost of sanctions is only steep at first. The baseline influence cost of a sanction is 80 for neutral leaders, 40 for unfriendly, and 30 for hostile. But Napoleon gets 50% influence towards sanctions, so the cost is much more reasonable and can potentially get lower than 20 per sanction.



Napoleon gets +1 combat strength on land units per sanctioned leader, up to +6. On a standard continents map, we can expect at least +3, which is not difficult to maintain when the other leaders are all unfriendly or hostile (you can afford some war support or city states, but admittedly less than others).

Xerxes gets +3 specifically on units that are attacking outside of his territory, so he will probably perform worse than Napoleon, especially against archer-heavy enemies. Also, his economic bonuses mostly take effect after he captures settlements, whereas Napoleon enjoys piles of gold and culture beforehand.

Genghis gets +5 on cavalry by a commander, which is arguably better than Napoleon’s military as long as you fully lean into it. But strong cavalry and some mostly inconsequential commander tricks are all Genghis gets - he has no economic perks whatsoever.

I thought the combat strength was per sanction (so +6 always)

The Gold and Culture is small (since you don’t want too many enemies you only have one sanctioned leader at a time)

But you get +6 on a target who is crippled by your sanctions.

 

[pmarc]

But you get +6 on a target who is crippled by your sanctions.

I believe he must be the worst deity AI to fight now for that reason.

 

[A_Most_Foolish_Fool]

An important caveat about Napoleon is that he’s dependent on map type and size. Obviously, he is safest on larger maps on which the AI rarely wages war in Antiquity. He excels on maps where you can meet all leaders in Antiquity, like Pangaea and the new Shattered Seas. On a continents map, he’s a little iffier, but still B-tier at worst. Say that you are playing on a Standard sized continent map, so you meet 3 leaders in Antiquity (excepting Tonga shenanigans). That’s still +3 combat strength and 15 gold and culture through most of the age.

The influence cost of sanctions is only steep at first. The baseline influence cost of a sanction is 80 for neutral leaders, 40 for unfriendly, and 30 for hostile. But Napoleon gets 50% influence towards sanctions, so the cost is much more reasonable and can potentially get lower than 20 per sanction.



Napoleon gets +1 combat strength on land units per sanctioned leader, up to +6. On a standard continents map, we can expect at least +3, which is not difficult to maintain when the other leaders are all unfriendly or hostile (you can afford some war support or city states, but admittedly less than others).

Xerxes gets +3 specifically on units that are attacking outside of his territory, so he will probably perform worse than Napoleon, especially against archer-heavy enemies. Also, his economic bonuses mostly take effect after he captures settlements, whereas Napoleon enjoys piles of gold and culture beforehand.

Genghis gets +5 on cavalry by a commander, which is arguably better than Napoleon’s military as long as you fully lean into it. But strong cavalry and some mostly inconsequential commander tricks are all Genghis gets - he has no economic perks whatsoever.

I also think that Emperor Napoleon is pretty underrated here, but there are some aspects to Xerxes KoK and Genghis Khan that are being unfairly ignored. Both Xerxes KoK and Genghis Khan have access to military endeavors (at a similar influence cost ratio to Napoleon's sanction combat bonuses) while Napoleon is left hoping that any leader they didn't sanction will take pity on them to send them endeavors. Genghis Khan's commander ability is far from inconsequential as it gets you both an early army and early commander levels (on top of the easy city-state clear which will give a bonus based on its type). Rushing to that +5 Combat Strength commendation bonus from your commander is important and Genghis Khan can most easily rush it while also being equipped to steal a settlement early even from Deity AI. Xerxes KoK has a pretty meaningful mid-late game gold bonus and more importantly a higher settlement limit that allows you to do so much more than your opponents (or alternatively prepare for going Qajar in Modern and wiping your foes out then). Remember that while Xerxes' settlement limit bonus is +1 in antiquity, it is actually +3 by the time you get to Modern due to how ages work. Xerxes' combat bonus applies to all of his units, which is meaningful for naval combat (Napoleon's bonuses are limited to land units). I don't think that Emperor Napoleon has any case for being better militarily than either Xerxes KoK or Genghis Khan in any respect.

That doesn't make Emperor Napoleon a weak leader though, it just makes it so he is focused on different things like leveraging the tempo of early gold and culture and targeting down a single enemy for an earlyish war. Emperor Napoleon really wants to leverage that early tempo into a strong position since his culture and gold bonuses are relatively worse as the game progresses. Even in spite of the age system, tempo is incredibly powerful in Civ VII and Emperor Napoleon is able to leverage it well. He just isn't going to be able to go toe-to-toe with a human Genghis Khan or Xerxes KoK on a level playing field and come out unscathed.

 

[Colorblind Chameleon]

I thought the combat strength was per sanction (so +6 always)

The Gold and Culture is small (since you don’t want too many enemies you only have one sanctioned leader at a time)

But you get +6 on a target who is crippled by your sanctions.

I just checked, and you’re right - Napoleon can get the +6 combat bonus regardless of the number of leaders present. I’m not sure why I never noticed - I always just assumed that it worked like the culture and gold in that you have to sanction different people for the full effect. That helps a lot for smaller maps.

I also think that Emperor Napoleon is pretty underrated here, but there are some aspects to Xerxes KoK and Genghis Khan that are being unfairly ignored. Both Xerxes KoK and Genghis Khan have access to military endeavors (at a similar influence cost ratio to Napoleon's sanction combat bonuses) while Napoleon is left hoping that any leader they didn't sanction will take pity on them to send them endeavors. Genghis Khan's commander ability is far from inconsequential as it gets you both an early army and early commander levels (on top of the easy city-state clear which will give a bonus based on its type). Rushing to that +5 Combat Strength commendation bonus from your commander is important and Genghis Khan can most easily rush it while also being equipped to steal a settlement early even from Deity AI. Xerxes KoK has a pretty meaningful mid-late game gold bonus and more importantly a higher settlement limit that allows you to do so much more than your opponents (or alternatively prepare for going Qajar in Modern and wiping your foes out then). Remember that while Xerxes' settlement limit bonus is +1 in antiquity, it is actually +3 by the time you get to Modern due to how ages work. Xerxes' combat bonus applies to all of his units, which is meaningful for naval combat (Napoleon's bonuses are limited to land units). I don't think that Emperor Napoleon has any case for being better militarily than either Xerxes KoK or Genghis Khan in any respect.

That doesn't make Emperor Napoleon a weak leader though, it just makes it so he is focused on different things like leveraging the tempo of early gold and culture and targeting down a single enemy for an earlyish war. Emperor Napoleon really wants to leverage that early tempo into a strong position since his culture and gold bonuses are relatively worse as the game progresses. Even in spite of the age system, tempo is incredibly powerful in Civ VII and Emperor Napoleon is able to leverage it well. He just isn't going to be able to go toe-to-toe with a human Genghis Khan or Xerxes KoK on a level playing field and come out unscathed.

Framing Napoleon as a warmonger in the same sense as Xerxes and Genghis was a poor choice of words on my part. Napoleon’s biggest strength early on is wonder rushing, with his combat bonus being more of a defensive measure to prevent people from punishing his sanctions. I think of him as less as a Genghis or Xerxes analogue and more of a Hatshepsut/Augustus analogue who trades production for the ability to start throwing punches later in the age once the wonders run out.

 

[UWHabs]

I do like how there's a difference of opinions. I don't think any leader is universally top tier - even the ones who seem to show up most in S or A tier like Himiko Wa or Tecumseh there seems to be a few people who have mid-tier. I don't even have one game with everyone yet, and only a couple leaders have I tried a couple times, so I can't judge fully, but at a glance I definitely don't feel any leaders are so over the top that they need a heavy nerf hammer. Sure, maybe you could tweak Himiko's Friend of Wei to 15% instead of 25% and it's not like she'd fall to the bottom, but at some level that's the most I would tweak. Maybe Tecumseh I'd consider capping his bonuses to like a +6 or even +10, but maybe giving him a +25% to befriend to get him to those bonuses a little faster. Or give him a lower cap but give him a bigger bonus to progressing with CS.

There's definitely a few leaders who could probably use a little bonus. Although some, like the Rizler, might jump up in tiers if other game mechanisms get rebalanced so that celebrations are less easy to chain, without editing his abilities at all.

The other part of leaders is that IMO it's more than fine if some leaders are weak, as long as they change up your play style. Like Sayyida al Hurra probably is weaker, but has some synergies that in some specific cases can be just a looney. Whether Machiavelli is top tier or bottom tier, he's fun because you can just play him like a maniac.

 

[uppi]

The other part of leaders is that IMO it's more than fine if some leaders are weak, as long as they change up your play style. Like Sayyida al Hurra probably is weaker, but has some synergies that in some specific cases can be just a looney. Whether Machiavelli is top tier or bottom tier, he's fun because you can just play him like a maniac.

Playing Sayyida al Hurra has made me realize that I have neglected spying too much with other leaders. Applying this lesson to other leaders has netted me the 3rd scientific legacy point in my last Machiavelli game, because I only got over the finish line before the age ended only with some extra science provided by spying. So playing Sayyida has actually slightly changed my play style with other leaders.