Leader Tier List/Ranking/Review Thread

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.
Being strong/viable is, imo, vastly less important than being fun. Sure, the two can often go hand in hand, but not always, and I don't care if I'm technically at a disadvantage so long as I'm having a good time.
 
Being strong/viable is, imo, vastly less important than being fun. Sure, the two can often go hand in hand, but not always, and I don't care if I'm technically at a disadvantage so long as I'm having a good time.

Personally I'm not trying to speedrun my games, and I don't play multiplayer. So more often than not I will skip leaders who are too strong because those games are less challenging and less fun.
 
I am now playing as Emperor Napoleon, and indeed, each sanction counts as one point towards the combat strength of land units. In the exploration era it's very easy to maintain 6+ continuously, investing influence in only three enemies (my current situation, where they're already sanctioning me all the time anyway). It's a small amount of influence to spend, and you can have suzerain city-states and even research or cultural agreements with other civilizations. In Antiquity, especially in the first half, it's more problematic because your enemies aren't fully defined, and influence is scarcer.

In short, I see him as an entertaining military leader because he's somewhat different, but not one of the best. Gold and culture are welcome, but I don't see his strength there.
 
Back
Top Bottom