Most Flexible Leader?

[shyuhe]

HC and Liz are both very versatile leaders. The problem with trying to figure out who's the most flexible is that a powerful leader is by default, flexible. Both leaders have good traits, UU, and UB so you can go after any win condition given any map. In that sense, I think both leaders are very flexible. HC is probably a little better at the military based victory conditions but Liz is a little better for peaceful victories. But both are much more flexible than say... Toku.

 

[Hereditary Rule]

Maybe one way to rephrase the question is this: -

Achieve the following victories, played on one difficulty level HIGHER than you normally play, with the same leader/CIV:

1. Continents, any victory
2. Pangaea, any victory
3. Fractal, any victory
4. Random map, Space Race
5. Random map, Culture
6. Random map, Domination
7. Random map, Conquest
8. Random map, Diplomacy

Imagine there's a nice cash prize for achieving all 8 victories, at one level higher than you normally play. Everyone will have a different preference for what leader they choose, but the answers people give will by default be a leader THEY find flexible. At least flexible enough to win all 8 scenarios (in their judgment).

Off the top of my head I might be inclined to pick Alexander, with whom I've achieved every victory listed except Diplomacy.

 

[madscientist]

Maybe one way to rephrase the question is this: -

Achieve the following victories, played on one difficulty level HIGHER than you normally play, with the same leader/CIV:

1. Continents, any victory
2. Pangaea, any victory
3. Fractal, any victory
4. Random map, Space Race
5. Random map, Culture
6. Random map, Domination
7. Random map, Conquest
8. Random map, Diplomacy

Imagine there's a nice cash prize for achieving all 8 victories, at one level higher than you normally play. Everyone will have a different preference for what leader they choose, but the answers people give will by default be a leader THEY find flexible. At least flexible enough to win all 8 scenarios (in their judgment).

Off the top of my head I might be inclined to pick Alexander, with whom I've achieved every victory listed except Diplomacy.

What, a cash price. The hell with Asoka, I'll take HC or Elizabeth!!!! Actually if I would go one level above what I normally play (Monarch) I would definitely want HC.

Al is a good choice too. Diplomatic simply requires you to have greater than 60% of the population while less than the required Land. Which means pillage your UN rival without capturing his cities.

 

[KMadCandy]

Imagine there's a nice cash prize for achieving all 8 victories, at one level higher than you normally play. Everyone will have a different preference for what leader they choose, but the answers people give will by default be a leader THEY find flexible. At least flexible enough to win all 8 scenarios (in their judgment).

yeah that's how i answered, but with one caveat: the prize is exactly what you said, "achieving all 8 victories" and specifically not a competition for highest score in the games. even trying to simply get the highest scores i could, without trying to beat other people's scores, would take me infinite time and hair-pulling-out attempts. i picked the leader i knew i'd have more fun than frustration trying, and actually be able to do it with my playstyle, nevermind the score.

Off the top of my head I might be inclined to pick Alexander, with whom I've achieved every victory listed except Diplomacy.

oh i can't pick alex!! i get lots of victories "with" him but in a totally different way ... he was by far my most frequent "honey, so-and-so gave me a dirty look. would you go beat him up for me? i don't want to (or i'm not ready to) fight a war myself right now" partner pre-BtS. if i'm alex, he won't be there to help me!

 

[lukep]

Fin is not flexible in my mind, try to do a long war for example.

Fin will boost the CE economy, but it is quite a rigid way of playing. Strong, but you must follow the rail.

Org, Spi, Exp are 3 traits that are flexible by nature. the advantages they give are subtle, but can be leveraged in many ways.

So Asoka, Isabella & Memhed are those that fit the bill for me. I have some trouble with isabella because her start techs, UB and UU suck, but the other 2 are good.

I think i prefer Memhed, he is very strong at the start, with discounts on all the first buildings (except library) and workers

 

[King of Town]

washington does look nice to play with. I used to like fredrick the most because he had organized and philo. I had huge empires, but like madscientist I had to go for smaller maps too. It's a shame I miss all of those differnt personalities together.

 

[Iranon]

First, flexibility as defined in the opening post (even more so the suggestion played at beyond one's normal difficulty) really refers to power more than flexibility.
Another bias - that becomes larger if you offer a cash prize - is that a rational competitor would pick a leader who is good at whatever the player isn't. If I can build, trade and sweet-talk my way to victory even unaided by traits but suck at warfare, I'd either get a heavy-duty warmonger or someone who gets an early UU that dominates anything else regardless of traits (for example, Caesar at lower and Huayna Capac at higher levels).

HC is, in my opinion, flexible as well as powerful: Capability for a super-early rush, early culture bonus, long-term builder traits. Each comes online where they benefit most and he can be an excellent choice even if you mostly ignore the other half of his bonuses.
This gives you strategic flexibility which is what the wording of the original question seems to ask for; on a smaller scale he can be fairly rigid: Excellent builder if you plan for it. Excellent rusher if you devote your early game to it. Not always a smooth transition though. If you start out peaceful you'll never get a military edge through a UU. If you start with bashing heads you need to plan many turns in advance whether you want to quit warmongering or not: his preferred economy is extremely powerful but neither particularly flexible nor robust.

For tactical flexibility, however, you will be hard-pressed to beat Spiritual. Avoid a costly war? Adjust your state religion. Giving in to stupid AI demands is also less costly. You neglected your military and were caught with your pants down? Change civics and whip/draft some high-xp defenders. You can get your economy to a peace footing just as easily. The same also allows you to wage a quick, decisive war for territory, then consolidate.

Gandhi has a powerful second trait that happens to synergise very well with it, so I'd regard him as the best Spiritual leader. On the other hand, he has no military advantage over anyone.
For that reason I'd give Brennus or Asoka the award for tactical flexibility: Brennus has an early offensive UU, and a trait that provides increasing benefits to one's military while also having economic benefits. Asoka suffers from Gandhi's flaw of not having anything that makes early warmongering easier, but at least he enjoys high rewards because early conquest doesn't slow down his economy too much. Bashing heads is very much an option if the opportunity presents itself.