Leaders/Civs for Beginners

[ConanKND]

My first topic, here I go!

I'm quite a new Civ player. I just got Civ4 and Walords about three weeks ago and I got hooked. But there's a lot of tough things in Civ. One of them is when I start a new game. I don't really know what leader to choose!

Well, at first it was easy. I first tried to get every victory condition. I got a Time victory in the vanilla tutorial, a Space Race victory as Frederick in Vanilla, a Diplomatic as Louis XIV in vanilla and as Wang Kon in warlords, a Domination as Genghis Khan in warlords again, a Cultural win in warlords as Gandhi and a Conquest as Julius Caesar. (Okay, that one doesn't really count. It was in a custom duel map against Monty. I just want to exact revenge on him for ruining one of my games.)

But now it's kinda hard. I don't know what leader to use, and I'm sure I'm not alone in this subject.

So, to the point, are there any leaders that you think would be easy for beginners to use? There are some that I tried and can't seem to work. The American Leaders are hard for me, I tried both of them.

Thanks in advance for all ya help.

 

[Tunguska]

Try playing Augustus Ceasar, or one of the egyptian leaders.
I find them all very playable.

Tunguska.

 

[LuckyAC]

I'd say it's definitely best to use a random leader. You want to develop an all-around knowledge of the game and not start to rely on certain traits or Unique attributes as a crutch. It's also just more fun to see the variety.

If you just want a powerful leader, go with Augustus Caesar, Huyana or Elizabeth.

 

[svv]

If you want to win easily, use Julius (or Augustus if you have warlords). The Praetorians will give you a huge edge.

Otherwise, one good thing for new players is to use someone with the spiritual trait, so you can easily switch between civics to see how they affect your numbers and your play. Mansa Musa is a good choice, because he is also financial, so he'll give you an edge on your commerce/research.

On the other hand, if you want to experiment with a lot of specialists and getting great people faster, try Saladin. The other fun thing with him is to try to build up a few religions in his capital before founding other cities, to make it a super-money city.

Once you feel you have no need of the spiritual civic, try Elizabeth who is both Financial like Mansa AND Philosphical like Saladin, allowing you to run a "hybrid" economy with a few specialized cities producting Great People, and lots of cottages and commerce elsewhere.

 

[civ4legs]

I agree with svv: I love spiritual leaders still, but I think they are especially helpful when first learning...

 

[OTAKUjbski]

First off, welcome to the CivFanatics Forums!!!

So, to the point, are there any leaders that you think would be easy for beginners to use? There are some that I tried and can't seem to work. The American Leaders are hard for me, I tried both of them.

Thanks in advance for all ya help.

This is what I did to learn the traits (which to me is what makes the leaders necessary to 'learn'): I chose Industrious as my first trait every time. Then, I systematically changed the 2nd trait to focus on its added benefits (since I already knew Industrious quite well). After going through all the traits except Philosophical (b/c there is no Philosophical-Industrious leader ... omfg if there was ), I felt I had a firm enough grasp to allow for random leaders.

-------- Beyond that, I'd say: --------

These traits are some of the 'easiest' traits to play:

• Creative. Not having to worry about Libraries and Monuments to expand your new cities' culture means focusing more on the war or the building at hand. This also means you can choose better city locations with less detailed concern on strategy.
  
  
• Charismatic. Specifically -25% XP needed for promotions. If you think you'd like going to war, I value the XP bonus from Charismatic over the free promotion of Aggressive. +1 is nice too, but since comes into play more heavily at higher difficulties, it's bonus.
  
  
• Industrious. At 'beginner' levels, it's possible to build nearly every wonder with this bonus.
  
  
• Philisophical. Until you've learned the 'art' of birthing Great People, having this trait will allow you to see more GPs, thus learning just how powerful they can be.

This isn't to say these traits are only good at early levels or otherwise implicated as 'weak' ... this is just to say they are more-or-less 'passive' and so don't need a specific strategy or play style to make the most of them.


The most easily exploited Unique Units, imo, are:

• Celtic Gallic Warrior
• Egyptian War Chariot
• German Panzer
• Roman Praetorian
• Spanish Conquistador

To me, these units can be devastating when utilized properly (even if used improperly, sometimes). Like the traits I think are 'passive', the technologies necessary for these units are very commonly seen in a variety of strategies. As such, gaining access to these units doesn't require a special line of teching.

The tech exception is perhaps the Conquistador. Some people opt to bypass Guilds and so don't see Knights until later. However, if a late Medieval/early Renaissance war is inevitable, Conquistadors are your best friend.

The Panzer might also not fit quite simply b/c late wars are usually tough wars wrought with War Weariness. This, to me, is precisely why the Panzer fits, though. With its extra +50% vs other Armoured Units, it often means the difference between a long, hard-fought war and one that progresses quickly and smoothly.

 

[svv]

First off, welcome to the CivFanatics Forums!!!


The most easily exploited Unique Units, imo, are:

• Celtic Gallic Warrior
• Egyptian War Chariot
• German Panzer
• Roman Praetorian
• Spanish Conquistador

That might be true in warlords, but in Vanilla it's probably Roman Praetorian, Russian Cossack, English Redcoat, Spanish Conquistador, and then maybe the German Panzer in very narrow circumstances.

 

[OTAKUjbski]

That might be true in warlords, but in Vanilla it's probably Roman Praetorian, Russian Cossack, English Redcoat, Spanish Conquistador, and then maybe the German Panzer in very narrow circumstances.

I played Vanilla twice then got upset I couldn't download anybody's Warlords saves.

Redcoats? Really? Wow ... they must've gotten hit pretty hard with the nerf bat then.

Thanks for the clarification.

 

[uat2d]

why don't you try again julius caesar with his praetorians on duel, but in harder levels?
my first prince game was just like you said, with churchill as my opponent, which his protective/charismatic. i was really hard, but i won by conquest

 

[Ecofarm]

Random civ, random era. Small map for short game. Fractal or pangea. No tech trading, no barbarians, no tech huts. Noble level (to practice for MP, which is almost always noble level quick speed) and maybe normal speed, probably quick (99% of MP are quickspeed).

If going for conquest/domination, because the AI builds early spaceship parts while I burn his cities, I sometimes turn off space-race and cultural victories, so that the AI does not waste time failing to defend against me. I have seen the AI build some culture (perhaps incidental) despite the setting no_culture_victory, but I have never seen an AI waste time on a spaceship part with no_spacerace_victory. I go for conquest, domination if I am lazy (all MP end in conquest). Of course, the AI is a useless war_opponent, but it gives me a feel for the time-range required for certain units, and what reasonable defenses will look/hurt like. To be fair to the AI, at least it doesn't give up and suicide, splatter without reasonable odds, or leave cities virtually empty.



I play monarch/emporer for challange in SP.

 

[oyzar]

gaellic warrior is easily exploitable?? He is very hard to use except in mp imo... Go follow some of sitsuils ALC's if you want specific information on leaders and traits.

 

[OTAKUjbski]

gaellic warrior is easily exploitable?? He is very hard to use except in mp imo... Go follow some of sitsuils ALC's if you want specific information on leaders and traits.

Maybe I'm just fooling myself, but I think Guerilla I is a very strong promotion for a melee unit who otherwise isn't eligible for it -- especially if combined with any two of the early +XP bonuses (Barracks, Great Military Instructor, Vassalage, Theocracy).

I will never argue against Archers and Longbowmen being the premier early-game city defenders.

However, I will also argue in favour of multi-purpose units.

Even in the flattest of terrain, it seems 1 in 3 enemy cities will be on a hill. Furthermore, 2 of 3 cities are likely adjacent to a hill -- which is where I'll park my units for the duration of the siege. Let's assume I'm building my Gallic Warriors specifically in regard to those cities.

Archer w/ City Garrison I & II has a strength 7.35 defending a hilltop city, 5.25 defending an flat city, 4.5 on an 'open-country' hill and 3 attacking a city.

EDIT: I chose not to give the Archer the free Guerilla I promotion available from a Dun b/c this is an "all things being equal" scenario in my mind. With Guerilla I, an Archer's hilltop city defense would increase to 7.95 -- still 0.1 strength lower than my 'suped up defender' Gallic Warrior.

3 * ( 1 + 0.25 + 0.5 + 0.25 + 0.20 + 0.25 ) = 7.35 defending a hilltop city
3 * ( 1 + 0.25 + 0.5 ) = 5.25 defending a plains city
3 * ( 1 + 0.25 + 0.25 ) = 4.5 defending a hill
3 * 1 = 3 attacking a city
​

A Gallic Warrior with Guerilla I, Combat I and Shock defends a hill or hilltop city with a strength of 9.3 (presumably offset by -1.25 vs Axeman), 8.1 defending a plains city and 6.6 attacking a city.

6 * ( 1 + 0.25 + 0.2 + 0.1 ) = 9.3 defending a hill or hilltop city (presumably ~8.05 vs Axeman)
6 * ( 1 + 0.25 + 0.1 ) = 8.1 defending a plains city (~6.85 vs Axeman)
6 * ( 1 + 0.1 ) = 6.6 attacking a city​

I certainly won't argue that a Swordsman / Gallic Warrior with City Raider I/II is going to be far superior against a city (9.3), and I don't contend that my 'suped up defender' Gallic Warrior is gonna stand up against an equally 'suped up defender' Archer (I think the chance to win is 37% for 6.6 : 7.35 w/ 1 1st strike.)

EDIT: However, after a little collateral damage, my 'suped up defender' Gallic Warrior will be able to play a strong role in the city assault while simultaneously being able to stay behind in defense of the same city he just captured. Even with attack-type promotions, an Archer would have to be fighting a warrior-strength defender to have any chance of participating in the active assault.

I'm pretty sure my math is accurate, but I'm really not entirely certain. I calculated these strengths to support and explain what I've already noticed through experience. Somebody better with combat odds and strengths should definitely double-check me.

Aside from the fact the Gallic Warrior makes a more versatile unit than a dedicated defender like Archery units, my biggest point of contention is that Archery units cannot upgrade to Grenadiers. Like many people do, I frequently opt to bee-line Steel for the ever-powerful Grenadier / Cannon combo.

One down side to this combination is that a Gallic Warrior costs 15 hammers more (+60%) than an Archer, so if quick defense is an issue, then this may not even be a viable option.

EDIT: A second downside is that melee units are not eligible for City Garrison and Guerilla promotions. Therefore, the defensive bonuses listed can only increase by 0.1 (Combat) per promotion. An Archer could feasibly add another 60% (70% vs melee) with Guerilla II and City Garrison III. So, if uber-defense is the goal, then creating a 'dual-purpose' Gallic Warrior is not the route to take.


So, this is what I contend for a 'suped up defender' Gallic Warrior:

• Cannot gain Guerilla II or City Garrison I promotions
• Costs 15 more than an Archer
  
  ... but ...
  
  
• Better city Attacker than an equally 'suped up defender' Archer
• Better defender than an equally 'suped up defender' Archer
• Does not require Archery tech (60 beakers saved)
• Does not require a Dun for free Guerilla I
• Can upgrade to Grenadier

I think that covers it.

 

[cabert]

guerilla I is useless. Guerilla II is not free. CR is better.
That pretty much covers what I think of gallic warriors.

If you want to learn a lot about the game, use spiritual leaders first.
My all time favourite is Isabella. Expansive may not be everyone's favourite trait, but being able to settle far from fresh water gives you more freedom in city placement, and the low cost granaries are great to learn the value of whipping .

 

[ConanKND]

Right. Thanks for the tips.
Yeah, i think spiritual leaders are quite easy too, and from the advice here, I think that the Egyptians are quite decent, so I decided to go with Rameses II just to see if they're worthwhile.

I played a Continent map on Noble Difficulty, and wow. The game cruised along very smoothly. In Thebes I managed to get about 7 wonders by the mid 1800's. The war chariot is not that good, maybe I just can't get the hang of it, or maybe because I don't have much production yet. (BTW, flood plains and capital, sweet!), though I managed to sang/raze a few cities Wang Kon placed on my borders, including P'yongyang, his second city. (I had make an unfair deal with Cyrus to get horses. He expanded so fast! Must be his Imperialistic trait, I guess.) I also managed to find Hinduism, Confucianism (Code of Laws slingshot via Oracle.) and Islam. My cultural influence was quite powerful too, flipping one Persian and Korean city each. I'm not even creative!

The game is now quite good, and I'm really thrilled at the Egyptians. May try Hatty next. But first I gotta accept playing as a queen. At least you don't have to see your own face!

Will continue to report, if I can, and will happily accept any advice, both on this game and the whole topic.

Last : I also manage to dogpile on Roosevelt with the rest of the other continent. I did this, paying several techs, because on the games I played so far, Roosevelt is a threat. Wang Kon seems to be a threat to, so I DoW on him too, planning to do it again, this time with the Grenadier/cannon combo.

----

 

[oyzar]

i never use archers cept when i cant build warriors for cheap defence and even then it is a pure tossup vs chariots for pure hapiness purposes cept in some extreeme corner cases. I ment compared to a swordsman there is very little difference in SP. In muiltiplayer the unit is obviously decent but in SP it does absolutly nothing compared to normal swordsmen(cept the can be built with copper thing, but that isnt realy worth an UU alone...).

 

[utberguy]

If you want to win easily, use Julius (or Augustus if you have warlords). The Praetorians will give you a huge edge.

Otherwise, one good thing for new players is to use someone with the spiritual trait, so you can easily switch between civics to see how they affect your numbers and your play. Mansa Musa is a good choice, because he is also financial, so he'll give you an edge on your commerce/research.

On the other hand, if you want to experiment with a lot of specialists and getting great people faster, try Saladin. The other fun thing with him is to try to build up a few religions in his capital before founding other cities, to make it a super-money city.

Once you feel you have no need of the spiritual civic, try Elizabeth who is both Financial like Mansa AND Philosphical like Saladin, allowing you to run a "hybrid" economy with a few specialized cities producting Great People, and lots of cottages and commerce elsewhere.

I found isabella is easy for beginners; make sure you get horse though
!

 

[T.rex]

Try the Vikings (Leader Ragnar - Aggressive, Financial), my favorite. Tips: The Berserker unit kicks ass, build many of them and start sack'en 'n' loot'en! . Build as many of your cities (as reasonable) on the coast to take advantage of their unique building - the Trading Post.

Have fun and don't forget to burn and pillage like a good Viking should!

 

[InFlux5]

Personally I'd recommend staying away from the Industrious leaders. We all know how much harder it is to get wonders on levels above Prince.

It sounds to me like you are a step above "beginner". Yes, having 7 wonders in the capitol is a fun game. But at some point you're going to want a challenge. And you don't want to be meeting that challenge on crutches.

Realize that Ramesses and Egypt are a very powerful civ - and you didn't even exploit the War Chariot!

Random is the way to go in my opinion. Getting good at this game is about the ability to adapt. You don't want to rely on specific traits, units, or wonders.

It sounds like you are ready to go up a difficulty level - and probably another one shortly after that. Sitting back and comfortably building half the wonders in the game can be fun, but it's very easy. As you move up in level there will be much more pressure to expand and conquer, and much less time for building un-necessary things.

 

[utberguy]

Personally I'd recommend staying away from the Industrious leaders. We all know how much harder it is to get wonders on levels above Prince.

It sounds to me like you are a step above "beginner". Yes, having 7 wonders in the capitol is a fun game. But at some point you're going to want a challenge. And you don't want to be meeting that challenge on crutches.

Realize that Ramesses and Egypt are a very powerful civ - and you didn't even exploit the War Chariot!

Random is the way to go in my opinion. Getting good at this game is about the ability to adapt. You don't want to rely on specific traits, units, or wonders.

It sounds like you are ready to go up a difficulty level - and probably another one shortly after that. Sitting back and comfortably building half the wonders in the game can be fun, but it's very easy. As you move up in level there will be much more pressure to expand and conquer, and much less time for building un-necessary things.

hey Influx5
thanks for the tip! I felt that you really spoke to my problem. I am also a noble player & i totally get sidetracked to building random stuff on prince and get crushed.

I have a Q though, how to speed the research along on higher levels? I was still in renassaince when the tanks come knocking on my door. any good tips?

 

[InFlux5]

Hmm, it's hard to say. As you move up, the AI researches a lot faster, so that you can't simply sit back and move up the tech tree without falling behind.

If you are falling behind it's probably one of several things.

-Not trading enough. This is essential since the AI civs will always trade with each other. Bee-line for "trade bait" techs that none of the AIs will have yet (e.g. Alphabet, Drama, Paper.)

-Not enough cottages/commerce. It's important to never stop expanding your economy. This usually means spamming cottages in all the prime locations (i.e. river-grassland and floodplains); but there are other ways. For example, in my current game I drew Archipeligo, so there is little room for cottaging. So instead I built the Great Wall, then used the engineer for the Colossus. I drew a Financial civ (Korea) so my economy is producing nicely without the need for a ton of cottages.

(It's ok to build one or two of the early wonders with a specific strategy in mind. For example, you might be Philosophical and go for a Great Wall to Pyramids Specialist Economy. [Look up threads on the SE in the articles section. Don't worry about doing it yet, just get an idea and start looking into great people more.])

Anyway, as I said it's hard to tell without seeing one of your saved games. But it's probably a combination of stalling on the cottage spam and not trading enough.

P.S. Check out this guide when you have some time (and you're not playing): Intermediate Tactics