Least Flexible Leader

[madscientist]

Well, the title expalins it. Given the same criteria as the Most flexible leader. Which ones are the least fleible and least likely to get all the wins and the landmasses. Put aside the fact that we can win with any leader becasue we are Civfanatics.

Saladin is the first to come to mind. Poor starting techs, required to head for religions (generally), weak protective trait, and his UU is indifferent if he has access to horses.

Wang in another who seams destined for space. His UB is strictly tech, and the UU took a nerf in BTS.

Tokugawa is a war monger who would strugle bigtime going culture or isloated.

 

[Julian Delphiki]

I think most flexible thread already changed to most powerful (not sure if it really is the same thing). Mao seems to have quite bad trait combination (well, he deserves it) but AI seems to do often surprisingly well with him. UU is good i hear.

 

[madscientist]

I think most flexible thread already changed to most powerful (not sure if it really is the same thing). Mao seems to have quite bad trait combination (well, he deserves it) but AI seems to do often surprisingly well with him. UU is good i hear.

I think Mao is more of a medium leader. Epansive is a decent trait and he will minimal health issues. The UU and UB are very stronge, so he can play the culture and military angle. He is weak in teching early and needs a focused apporach to commerce or SE. Poor terrain or an Isolated start will crush him, which makes up for his good UU/UB as far a versatility.

 

[The Rook]

I would add Julius Caesar as a candidate for the "least flexible", although he isn't the worst by a mile. With Iron and some AI's to conquer he looks awesome. Organised is great to absorb the cost of his conquered cities, and Imperialistic would guarantee him some great generals. In isolation however, this plan falls apart at the seams. Of course, with Organized he still wouldn't be the worst leader by any means, but the strength of his A game contrasts sharply with his uninspiring B game.

 

[Charou]

for the same reason as the rook stated.
seafaring civilizations ( willem, ragnar etc... )
are not so flexible if it
wasn't for the financial trait, which is a good security blanket
Obviously they lose a lot of their assets on aosis and lakes maps.

The fact that most players despise them on land map types
makes a point by itself.

I don´t play them. but that´s because I don't like the financial trait.

 

[AmazonQueen]

Cyrus with Charismatic and Imperialistic needs wars to shine, although I suppose hes better off than Genghis or Toku.

 

[Winston Hughes]

Boudica. If it ain't war, she ain't interested.

 

[Julian Delphiki]

^I think we have a winner.

 

[DigitalBoy]

Boudica at least has Mysticism for religion and Charismatic for larger cities earlier.

I'd say Tokugawa is definitely a one-trick pony. His traits are strictly war-based, and his UB comes late and gives a marginal boost to production. He has nothing in the way of economy or builder strategies.

 

[Julian Delphiki]

He does have shale plant, as you said . Both leaders are quite strictly warmongerers, it's true.

 

[Philo_Beddoe]

genghis, traits, UU and UB are all geared for war

boudica is the same

 

[Julian Delphiki]

Most UU's are geared towards war ..

 

[v8_mark]

Boudica's Charismatic, so gets some benefit from that at least. Can't see much peaceful benefit for Tokugawa, however. Half price Castles (clutching at straws)? Shale plant gives only a minor boost, and it's to production making it no use at all for technology. Although in all honesty, I'd say he is generally a weak leader anyway.

From the other perspective, I'd say Gandhi flounders in the face of an onslaught.

 

[Julian Delphiki]

AI Gandhi might, otherwise he is actually quite good war mongerer.

 

[madscientist]

AI Gandhi might, otherwise he is actually quite good war mongerer.

I agree, both Indians know how to fight.

 

[duende29]

I'd say Tokugawa. You either war, or war little, or war much, or war war. War war war is an option too... Have you tried the LHC Toku in emperor+? That thing is mad hard!

Oh, and Boudica, but at least she gets some early from Cha.

 

[Gooblah]

I'd say Tokugawa, since he leans towards isolationism. He only works if, and only if, he's isolated OR semi-isolated.

Saladin is the weakest leader, in my opinion. All you do is pump out Archers and Religions. Blam. You're conquered by Praets. Camel Archers aren't that great either...

 

[Winston Hughes]

From the other perspective, I'd say Gandhi flounders in the face of an onslaught.

If you watched my games, you could be forgiven for thinking Gandhi was only good for warmongering victories.

 

[Rusten]

I'd say Tokugawa, since he leans towards isolationism. He only works if, and only if, he's isolated OR semi-isolated.

Don't agree with you there. Tokugawa might be one of the least flexible, but he shines when he has company early in the game, not when he's alone. You can take over the world with Vassalage+Theocracy Samurai. If you're isolated you can't war until the Samurai are outdated and lose your advantage. In the LHC tokugawa game I barely lost a single Samurai until facing riflemen, they get an awful lot of promotions with these civics.

 

[Hereditary Rule]

I think Genghis is less flexible than Toku.

Toku
Some free promos, cheap Barracks, Drydock, Walls, and Castle. Castles give trade routes which could be leveraged for a slight economic edge while they last. His UB gives a slight production boost as well (for space, for instance)

Genghis
Every single special thing about him, except for 100% settlers production bonus, is a wartime bonus only.

Toku has 2 non warring bonuses (granted, they are small). Genghis only has one.