Most Fearsome Maniac

[CHEESE!]

Hey people. Im setting up this poll to find which people think is the most fearsome war-maniac.

My vote would go to Shaka, as he not only focuses on war and military, but he seems to understand how to tech as well. Monty, Boudica, etc always end up with Iron working in 1500 AD, but shaka will focus on both sides, and does them both well.


So, whats your vote?

 

[Stuck in Pi]

Monty! He attacks even when outteched, but in large numbers.

 

[pxpdoo]

Gandhi of India, or Boudecia of India.

 

[DigitalBoy]

Don't laugh, Willem van Orange was a complete warmonger in one of my games with him. Napoleon bribed him into going to war with me a couple of times, but Shaka was Willem's nextdoor neighbor, so that didn't last for too long.

Shaka is scary. It's not just his propensity for war but also the great success he always seems to have with it. Also techs just well enough to get a relatively up to date army available. He's the epitome of the ideal warmonger.

 

[Bhruic]

Yeah, I think that sums it up. Monty is crazier, but his wars usually aren't as effective. Shaka actually wins the fights he starts (usually). The only time I see him get slapped down is when someone he attacks bribes others into fighting him.

Bh

 

[Shirastro]

Alexander takes my vote, even if hes not in the poll.....i hate the guy

 

[Martin79]

Shaka. He is a war-maniac, a good stategist and he understands how to tech. Monty is a goofball warmonger.

 

[ICNP]

Shaka I had a game where he had a vassal and decided to goto war with ragnar. Poor Viking lasted about 7 turns as Shaka's Mobile Artilary and Jets blew through Ragnar's Curasiers.

 

[BalbanesBeoulve]

I've never seen any of the aggressive warmongers get to infantry. Even rifles is really rare. They're all a threat early game, but mid to late game they're barely an annoyance. Infantry vs Grenadiers isn't much of a fight.


The less extreme warmongers are the dangerous ones. Napoleon, Julius Caesar,Catherine, they're less aggressive than Shaka, Genghis, Monty, but still build tons of units and can still tech decently.


Tokugawa should be on this list. That nutjob's attacked me in the BCs, after only getting 2 settlers out.

 

[Shadzy19]

I would have voted hannibal but he isnt on the list so shaka.

 

[SpiritWolf]

I would've picked Shaka, though the choice of Oranje was too irresistable.
But yeah, I like adding these maniacs to my games to spice things up.

 

[mech654]

Tokugawa is insane he had attack me when I was strongest in the game he had only medevil units and I had early gunpowder and he knew that I had gun units.

 

[Monkeyfinger]

Catherine. So unpredictable.

I see Shaka or Montezuma, I go "welp, I'm going to be fighting this guy at some point, it's just a matter of when, and on whose terms." *starts building axemen* Not so hot when I'm prepared for you, are you?

Cathy on the other hand can make a great friend for a while until some third party attacks me, at which point she decides to dogpile whoever looks weaker, regardless of relations... usually me.

 

[InFlux5]

Worst for me has been Genghis Khan. But Shaka shows up in my games very rarely for some reason.

Agree with Catherine being a backstabber, but she's not the worst "maniac".

 

[erik316wttn]

Stalin ALWAYS declares war on me at some point. Always.

 

[nimling]

i voted for willem, only because the dutch as warmongers is a hilarious sight.

anyway, genghis can be a major pain in the early game, but i've never seen him strong past the medieval era...

sitting bull is another annoying one, although he's not exactly warmongery. even worse if he survives to rifling with his archery units intact, and plops several CG3+Drill2 rifles in his cities (or, as it turned out, my cities).

 

[Iranon]

Definitely Willem. Ragnar and Boudica are usually my loyal and beloved war dogs, the same often applies to Montezuma and Isabella (largely depending on the factor religion).
Monty get bonus points for being endearingly incompetent: I can usually sic him on someone without fearing that he'll end up with a huge empire and a vassal, while still being enough of a threat to take the target civ down a peg or two.

I've had mixed experiences with Shaka, but Willem has a consistent history of attacking me the instant he catches me with my pants down. Add that he usually has an economically healthy civilisation behind him and that's quite scary.

I also fear the unpredictable leaders more; Catherine and Suryavarman give me the creeps. Tokugawa, while predictable, is a danger that is very hard to put to good use.

 

[BalbanesBeoulve]

I hate survayaman, the dude is way to aggressive considering his traits. He's also a worse religion nut than isabella, imo.

Boudica makes a bad attack dog because it's too hard to get her to attack people. I think you have to be friendly? Genghis and the other nuts can be bribed at cautious, so they make better attack dogs.

Isabella is also a great attack dog, she'll even attack people of the same religion if they're only pleased with that person.

Degaulle is also pretty aggressive, he's one of the few who's attacked me in the BCs, besides the usual suspects. In my last game I sicced him on Julus Caesar after Caesar declared on me, and he ended up being way too effective. Took about 4 of JC's cities and then vassalized him. Just as I was about to take a city too. =(

 

[JustinianVII]

It's been mentioned already, but the leaders that can be hard to predict. Catherine, Gilgamesh, Survy, any other leader that backstabs at Pleased/Friendly. With Shaka and Monty, you know for sure they'll be coming for you at some point.

 

[joasoze]

I would have voted hannibal but he isnt on the list so shaka.

I`m all with you here.