Leaders and Civs picking thread

Cha is pretty good with natives actually, the extra XP from totem poles would allow longbowmen to start with 3 promotion (woodie3 and guerilla 3 are both good) and obviously aggressive and charismatic dog soldiers can be rather good.

Darius doesn't make any sense, fin is not particularly good. I would think something like Washington would be better for Persia (if we can get it). Another alternative could be to take an aggressive leader just to deny Rome that (though that would likely weaken our Zulu as well).

Another option could be de gualle (though it might be better to pick stalin for zulu since they won't have any better options), as getting stonehenge will be rather good if we have native america and several cha civs...
I'm not an expert. However I wouldn't consider non-protective civ for Native Americans. Tokugawa would be good, but I suggest Churchill? Charismatic+Protective would maximise the value of Totem pole.

Is wild city gifting allowed? This would mean we could pick as many side traits as possible to maximise the number of useful cheap buildings.

I assume we want Protective trait for Mali and Aggressive for Zulu. After this traits look like this:
Mali (protective, )
Zulu (agro, )
Persia -
Natives (protective?, Charismatic?)
G Khan of Maya (Agro, Imperialistic)

This leaves 4 side traits free. 1 of them should probably be Expansive and maybe we want also Philosophical and Industrious. Stalin for Zulu could work and maybe sitting bull for Mali or whatever protective leader is left then.

So Persia could be Expansive and we need side trait for it. Washington with Charismatic trait would be good pick as Oyzar suggested, but Sury with Creative trait would enable half priced libraries.
Why do you want protective? Adding extra CG to archers isn't that hot. We are likely going to build quite a few dog soldiers, getting extra combat there is pretty good... They also get easier access to shock and cover.

If you read the other thread, libraries aren't really going to be in hot demand, especially not in auxiliary cities(where gifting would be possible). Also if we aim to get henge it's benefit decreases. Philosophical trait gets worse when there are a lot of civs on a team, also universities aren't likely going to matter at all.

Having Mali as Churchill or Mao is probably best, half priced granaries and faster workers matters a lot more when you are going choking from the start.
Ok. I guess you're implying that Archery units promoted in CG and Drill lines are not that hot in this setup. If that is the case, Boudica would definately make sense as leader of the Natives.

I've read the threads here and understand that Libraries are not the 1st buildings in the build queue. However this could be something that makes a difference, if the game lasts a bit longer. But as I said I've no experience on this type of game.
I still believe we should be trying for one civ of our to be a commerce monster and be the source of our technological superiority. Every team game that I have been, there always has been one civ who does the most of the research and the rest of the civs do the warmongering. I played in one on OT, where azzaman333 was my team mate along with Lord Parking(Emperor) and we won that game due to the fact that we had the tech and military advantage early on. I was England and Elizabeth, azza was Egypt and Ramesses, and Emp was Shaka. Those two were the ones that did most of the fighting, since they both protected me, thus allowing me to focus on my economy. So I will say tha Mali should be our primary economic powerhouse and persi be a back up, should Mali be any sort of trouble.

Mali should be Pro/Fin (Wang Kon). Shaka should be Agg/Ind perhaps, but definitely Agg. It could be Agg/Cha if we decide to go for Agg/Pro for NA, which is both good for the civ. Persia should be Agg/Fin (Ragnar)
We won't get Agg/cha to lapp all the way to our zulu. Rome or Aztec will both likely pick agg civs leaving us with underwhelming choices for zulu. Agg/fin is like the worst combo, especially for persia which wants to build horse units... You realize we all potentially start within 10 tiles of the other civs right? Any civ which can't handle itself in the early game is not worth picking up.
Ok we are going for boudica for the natives, I think it is teh best choice as well. We need aggressive leader for the dogs and denying boudica from aztec or rome is important.
They replied immidiatelly taking Kublai (agg/cre) for the aztecs.

I suggest we go for Washigton (exp/cha) for Persia.

so far

Boudica of Natives
G Khan of Maya

K Khan of Aztec
Joao of India
Shaka of Babylon
Yeah Washington sounds best imo(Cha is great with horse units and for whipping and EXP is obviously huge).
Sorry for missing last choices... Boudica for natives was my vote too anyway :goodjob:

I wish a charismatic for the immortals... so OK for Wash!


edit: Alex or Hammurabi for Zulu?
OK we picked Washington.

Lets see what they pick for Rome

Out of the aggresive leaders my preference would be Stalin for zulu, with alex and monty as second choices.

Expansive leaders left for mali, there is mao, bismark, and hatespur...
They will probably pick monty for rome, though i could see them picking hammy as well.

Churchill sounds cool for mali (though might be a bit exacgerated) if we get stalin for zulu (monte or hammy might be good too though). Mao might just be better though.
Hammy is the worst of the aggressive leaders as organized is a useless trait in this format. Stalin, Alex & Monty are the logical choices.

For Mali the logical choice is Mao. You need expansive trait for sure, the question is what do you double it with? Protective seems nice for skirmishers, but Industrious or creative is not bad either....even philosophical maybe?
Any city with protective skirmishers will need a very heavy offense to be taken down. Protective doesn't actually help that much with choking or getting rid of chokes (though it does help somewhat as it allows for shock and cover), but it is pretty good for making it require much more hammers for them to take out a city. Any hill city is going to be pretty damn close to impregnable(they will need at least 3 swords or 2 praets to take it out). 1-3 first strikes is pretty nuts when you have +140 to +165(1 promo) already. Obviously sending skirmishers to the other teams is also certainly possible and it might help with getting them out of chokes as well. If we are getting Stonehenge (and with native America and 2 cha civs already it looks pretty good) +2 happiness is pretty damn good for whipping. Just the bonus from workers might be better though. Remember that we can gift any auxiliary cities to our expansive leader to chop (or whip) a granary there (though it does cost some hammers and food it is likely less than the 30 hammers we gain), so what expansive does is give +25% production on workers and double speed granary in capital. Creative is not so hot when we are likely building henge. Organized at least allows us 1 saving in gold on our 2nd and 3rd cities as well as double speed courthouses. That said I think it might be worth a trait just to get henge (though it is sad that it is our Zulus that have to get it, but better to have expansive or cha extra for Mali rather than org, phi or spi for our Zulus).
Yea protective skirmishers are nasty I agree.

Stonehedge it is not certain we are getting it though, they will go for it as well and with Jaoa of India they are a step closer in getting it.

Creative is a very good trait for this setup. First you get border pops faster and that means bigger visibilty, which saves lives! Second you can chop cheap library and get a fast scientist. It is a common tactic that allows you to have early Alphabet, which is priceless to get a few spies out.

So Yes protective is great for mali, but skirmishers on a hill are already hard to take out, that is why I am thinking that maybe having Mali get some wonders or make a scientist to bulb Alpha, could be a valid strategy.

Now for hammy, the savings from civics are minimal, you might as well get Ragnar...Monty saves you 3-4 turns of anarchy, that is good as well, and Alex will be usefull if the game goes past feudalism (so that caste system can be used with a golden age) and will be HUGE if he gets stone, as great wall with philosophical civ rocks.

Stalin is just an extra effort to get the 2 key wonders and maybe the third one as well....
Stalin is also rather good post metal casting as cheap forges everywhere is nice (by gifting cities around), though obviously that is about as far into the future as where philo/org get useful...
Top Bottom