Most Flexible Leader?

[The Rook]

I disagree on the slower start. Especially if she is coastal with a seafood bonus (and they tend to run in clumps). She starts with fishing so she can build a workboat while teching to BW, since she starts with mining. HC has to build the worker first THEN build the farm. If you're lucky he has rice or corn for a 5 or 6 food tile....plus one commerce for a river IF it's riverside, then he needs to tech the wheel and build a road to get it connected.
Liz can launch the boat at about turn 15 working a normal forested hill. So on turn 16 you have a 4 3 tile while you still have 14 turns until your worker is built. Start building a warrior or another work boat while working the seafood. It takes 5 turns to get to size2 then switch to a worker. At excatly turn 30 you can whip your worker so you have it on turn 31. You also have teched Agriculture and are 35beakers into another tech. And have already gone through your first period of anarchy

Even with riverside corn HC will need until turn 32 To have Bronzeworking, one 6 1 tile being worked and one worker. Seafood resources are more common than riverside corn. And a lighthouse bumps it to 5 3 and that is clams and crabs. If you get lucky enough to get coastal fish (happens about as often as riverside corn in my games) The you have a 6 3 at turn 12 if the fish are one tile from the capital and you had a plainshillforest but that is best case scenario)
Three tiles are HUGE in the opening phase of the game especially with bonus food as well. Unless he starts with a precious metal in his BFC, HC has to wait until he gets pottery before he can have a 3 tile. And with her 11-9 advantage (counting the 8 for the capital) Lizzy will get pottery first. Even sooner since she starts with fishing as well which further reduces the cost of pottery due to having both prerequisites. HC can quickly tech fishing as well, to take advantage of seafood, but he will always be a little behind Lizzy.

I think where Liz pales next to HC in the early game can be expressed in two words... "Quechua rush". On Immortal, the AI expands like a maniac, it just isn't fair, they're often all over you before your capital has chance to reach happy cap. The Quechua enables you to capitalise on your rival's greed, and jump on the weakest AI, before they have time to connect a strategic resource.

I must admit I prefer Mining to Mysticism, so that I can get bronze working in time for the first worker, if necessary. I would sooner have agriculture to fishing though, as more often than not my capital turns out to be inland. Also Agriculture leads to Animal Husbandry, and it is pretty much a certainty I will need one of those techs to improve the land around my starting location.

 

[duende29]

If HC early game revolves around Quechua Rush then I say the most flexible leader stays as Liz. What if you start in isolation? What if you play Archipelago? What if the enemy is far away, has copper and you have to settle your lands? What if there's another industrious leader with a wonder resource hooked up? These are things that affect HC that Liz doesn't give much about because her flexible economy allows flexible decisions. She can grab land, take it, tech, war, go for peaceful victory conditions, she's prepared for isolation and for neighbor capital situations.

HC shines at having someone close and using Quechuas, but Liz can make up for almost any situation. So I think the title of flexible goes to her.

PS: This is not about who is more powerful, but more flexible.

 

[madscientist]

Well, Perhaps we disagree. HC does not completely resolve arround Qunencha, he is industrious and Financial.

OK, Liz and HC are even with financial.

Liz's UU is more powerful, but comes later.

HC's UB is pretty awesome and gets him off and going very quickly as far as culture pops. Liz's UB is more powerful in the long run (for the same reason a cultural leader's trait wanes as the game proceeds).

Industrious can be used from the opening. Phil requires writing and a library, and then takes a while to generate the GP.

Who is the most powerful through the entire game 90% of the time, probably Liz. HC on the other hand can adjust to any situation.

He is alot more than a Quencha rush.

IMHO

 

[The Rook]

If HC early game revolves around Quechua Rush then I say the most flexible leader stays as Liz. What if you start in isolation? What if you play Archipelago? What if the enemy is far away, has copper and you have to settle your lands? What if there's another industrious leader with a wonder resource hooked up? These are things that affect HC that Liz doesn't give much about because her flexible economy allows flexible decisions. She can grab land, take it, tech, war, go for peaceful victory conditions, she's prepared for isolation and for neighbor capital situations.

HC shines at having someone close and using Quechuas, but Liz can make up for almost any situation. So I think the title of flexible goes to her.

PS: This is not about who is more powerful, but more flexible.

I thoroughly disagree with this assessment of HC. As I (and madscientist) have mentioned, the Quechua is an excellent early defensive unit. This is very significant in isolated or remote starts, because it allows HC to utilise his Industrious trait, without fear of being attacked by anything other than Barbarians. Whilst Liz would be wasting time settling mediocre cities to connect copper/horses, or researching dead end techs like Archery. If the enemy is far away, great! I'll forego settling my second city for the time being, and mop up the early wonders. Just because the Quechua rush can be strong, doesn't mean it needs to be utilised in every game, I probably do one in about 50% of my games with HC. Quechuas make near invincible early game scouts, and great fog busters too.

I don't disagree that Liz is one of the best leaders for remote/isolated starts, but I would argue that HC is very well equipped to handle them too. He's no one trick pony like Caesar. However, when the AI takes liberties, and literally settles their empire right next to yours, this is where HC beats Liz hands down.

Ok, if there is another Industrious AI, with a wonder source, who follows the same tech path as you, there might be a problem. Also, there might be a problem if you start with Monty, Shaka and Ragnar as your neighbours.

 

[Monkeyfinger]

Much worse for HC, assuming a high difficulty level, is if he starts with say Charlemagne, Hammurabi, Wang Kon, and Mansa Musa as neighbors. HC can beat the usual aggressive suspects like Montezuma to the punch, killing their unboosted archers and taking all their cities before they can get a speck of metal. But what the hell does he do if a bunch of leaders with the protective trait or super-archer UUs settle on top of him? He won't have enough cities to surge ahead with cottage spam or wonder spam. Elizabeth can at least get really fast GPs, bulb her way to a crucial military tech, then bonk their heads conventionally.

 

[madscientist]

Much worse for HC, assuming a high difficulty level, is if he starts with say Charlemagne, Hammurabi, Wang Kon, and Mansa Musa as neighbors. HC can beat the usual aggressive suspects like Montezuma to the punch, killing their unboosted archers and taking all their cities before they can get a speck of metal. But what the hell does he do if a bunch of leaders with the protective trait or super-archer UUs settle on top of him? He won't have enough cities to surge ahead with cottage spam or wonder spam. Elizabeth can at least get really fast GPs, bulb her way to a crucial military tech, then bonk their heads conventionally.

I would say HC builds wonders and cottages and techs towards the military same a LIz. Getting wonders such as Pyramids, Parthanon, GL faster can work as effectively in getting to military techs against those guys as Liz can.

HC going against Protective leaders doesn't matter much as far as an early Quencha rush (I assume that's what you getting at). They can get cover right away with a barracks (they start with combat I) which neutalizes the CGI of protective archers.

I have said it before, Liz is a veyr powerful leader. Say she's the most powerful and I won't argue. But tell me those 8 wins the OP mentioned and I'll take HC to deal with them all before Liz. Well, I would actually take Asoka to deal with all 8, I have mentioned that already.

We could go back and forth forever on this topic but to what point except sometimes it's fun to

 

[absimiliard]

For versatility I'll put my money on HC over Lizzie.

Mostly for the ability to rush combined with free culture, AND the huge potential between an Industrious Wonder-Spam capitol combined with Financial cottages if you happen to be isolated.

I'd say HC has his bases covered in all the circumstances, much as Lizzie does. However, since the Inca are better focussed on the critical early game and the English don't kick in until much later I give HC the win, by a nose, over Lizzie.

Sure, they'll both do well in any game. But HC will get going faster with a Quechua rush or if isolated with Wonder-Spam in the capitol and Terraced cities for expansion with Quechua protection from barb archers. Lizzie can play her leader traits all game, as can HC, but she has no special unit or special building until much later in the game. HC can leverage his from the git-go, and they both help whether isolated or not.

So put my vote in for HC.

-abs
"Though, my current game is with Lincoln and I'm finding the Phi/Cha combo is quite nice, though the late-gameness of the Americans pretty much removes them from any competition for most versatile."

 

[Iranon]

I rate HC highly in terms of both power and flexibility.

- He has arguably the best combination of starting techs: Agriculture is usually the most important worker tech, Mysticism offers a benefit that can't be replaced later. This frees you to do whatever you want to do.
- The unique building greatly helps land grabbing and is often the first one you will want to build anyway. This can easily be backed up by Stonehenge (Industrial, starting with Mysticism)
- Given the AI fondness for archers, Quechua start sucking surprisingly late. No-one else can wage war effectively as early and keep it up for that long without specific techs/resources.

His traits, on the other hand, make him one hell of a builder... I'd say he surpasses Lizzy as an economic powerhouse when shooting for a peaceful game and can more than hold his own in an isolated start.

From my experience, not only does he get a lot of good stuff, he also gets it whenever it comes in most useful.


***

As to being boxed in... I'm not sure that argument is entirely fair. Huayna has a better chance to prevent it or even take advantage of it (militarily or culturally). HC in my experience is a 'Rule more' rather than a 'Suck less' leader: excellent at establishing an advantage and milking it, but often lacking a safety net if his plans fail.

 

[The Rook]

Much worse for HC, assuming a high difficulty level, is if he starts with say Charlemagne, Hammurabi, Wang Kon, and Mansa Musa as neighbors. HC can beat the usual aggressive suspects like Montezuma to the punch, killing their unboosted archers and taking all their cities before they can get a speck of metal. But what the hell does he do if a bunch of leaders with the protective trait or super-archer UUs settle on top of him? He won't have enough cities to surge ahead with cottage spam or wonder spam. Elizabeth can at least get really fast GPs, bulb her way to a crucial military tech, then bonk their heads conventionally.

If the land issue is as bad as you suggest, Liz would have the same problems as any other civ, and would be DoWed long before she can reach that key military tech. Looking at the Great People lightbulbing priorities list, I can't see how a series of GS would be likely to help bulb a decent military tech pre-Rifling. The GS doesn't seem to care much for Construction, Feudalism, Machinery, CS etc.

Protective is an annoying trait for HC, but not a foil. Quechuas are so cheap, a size 5 city can easily knock one out every turn. Unless, the victim connects a strategic resource I would still fancy the Quechua against a Protective civ (if in range, as you suggest).

HC can beat the usual aggressive suspects like Montezuma to the punch, killing their unboosted archers and taking all their cities before they can get a speck of metal.

Ironically, Monty is one who worries me slightly, as his UU requires no strategic resources, not that I would expect him to obtain IW fast enough, but it would take quite a number of Quechuas to kill a fortified Jaguar.

 

[madscientist]

I agree with Rook, there are certain leaders that will make HC tech arechery pretty early. Sitting Bull, Monty, Hammarabi, and Pacal can build Quencha killing UUs without resources.

 

[Hereditary Rule]

So it appears that pretty much everyone is in agreement that Financial is the most flexible trait in the game - HC and Liz both have this trait, as do Ragner and Mansa (I believe Mansa was also mentioned). I guess it stands to reason that a boost to one's tech rate (through this trait) will ultimately fuel any victory condition, and financial provides that boost on most map types.

While none of this is definitive, it appears we've concluded that being Financial, over anything else, gives more flexibility than any other trait, UU, or UB does?

 

[Julian Delphiki]

It's also very boring. I tend to find myself surprised every time i play (rarely) FIN leader because of the fast(er) teching rate..

 

[Winston Hughes]

If anything, Financial is the LEAST flexible trait.

The problem is that the discussion is about how easy it is to win with a particular leader in different situations, rather than how many different options a particular trait offers you in pursuit of victory.

Financial may make it easier to achieve victory in each category, but, in almost every case, the only option it gives you is cottage-spam.

Now, a financial cottage-spam will let you tech or expand fast, generate lots of culture, etc. And, thus, it makes the leader more flexible from the player's point of view.

But, of itself, the trait offers virtually no flexibility at all.

So, more correctly, it seems that one conclusion to draw from this thread is this: The least flexible trait makes for the most flexible leaders.

Which is not to say that I agree...

 

[Hereditary Rule]

If anything, Financial is the LEAST flexible trait.

The problem is that the discussion is about how easy it is to win with a particular leader in different situations, rather than how many different options a particular trait offers you in pursuit of victory.

Financial may make it easier to achieve victory in each category, but, in almost every case, the only option it gives you is cottage-spam.

Now, a financial cottage-spam will let you tech or expand fast, generate lots of culture, etc. And, thus, it makes the leader more flexible from the player's point of view.

But, of itself, the trait offers virtually no flexibility at all.

So, more correctly, it seems that one conclusion to draw from this thread is this: The least flexible trait makes for the most flexible leaders.

Which is not to say that I agree...

I see what you're saying. Would you then say Philo is the most flexible trait?

Need Gold? generate a GM,
Culture? a GA
Tech? GS
Empire wide production boost? Start a Golden Age.

I suppose the least flexible trait, Financial, is the most flexible because commerce can be turned into anything via the slider.

 

[Winston Hughes]

I suppose the least flexible trait, Financial, is the most flexible because commerce can be turned into anything via the slider.

Yeah, I suspect the flexibility people see in Financial leaders is a result of it being the only trait which gives a direct bonus to one of the three basic building blocks of a civ (ie. commerce, food, hammers).

If there was a trait which gave bonus food or hammers, then I'd expect that to feature heavily in a list of most flexible leaders.

Would you then say Philo is the most flexible trait?

Well, it doesn't demand an SE (in the way that Fin demands a CE), so it's flexible in the sense that it's effective in any type of economy.

And there are all manner of interesting tricks you can pull off with the Philosophical trait.

But most flexible?

To me, Spiritual seems the one which offers the most flexibility, since it allows you to switch your empire between War/Peace, Commerce/GP, etc. at the drop of a hat.

And, even more so than with Philosophical, there are loads of clever tricks you can use if you're Spiritual (I have KMad to thank for teaching me many of them ).

On the other hand, I'm a huge fan of the trait, while most people seem to rate it a lot lower, so maybe I'm just biased.

(Or maybe most people just don't know how to get the best out of it... )

 

[The Rook]

But most flexible?

To me, Spiritual seems the one which offers the most flexibility, since it allows you to switch your empire between War/Peace, Commerce/GP, etc. at the drop of a hat.

And, even more so than with Philosophical, there are loads of clever tricks you can use if you're Spiritual (I have KMad to thank for teaching me many of them ).

On the other hand, I'm a huge fan of the trait, while most people seem to rate it a lot lower, so maybe I'm just biased.

(Or maybe most people just don't know how to get the best out of it... )

Personally I think Spiritual is probably more powerful under an SE than a CE, since it is easier to have "surges" of production/research through whipping and fast regrowth. Obviously Slavery+Organised Religion for building, Slavery+Vassalage/Theocracy for units, Caste (sometimes with Pacifism) for research etc. Also the inevitable unhappiness that follows is easier to counter via the culture slider, without haemorrhaging the economy. In a CE, production prior to US can be slow.

 

[futurehermit]

I would say philosophical is more flexible than financial, but both are very flexible.

I think it's fair to say that both HC and Liz are extremely flexible leaders and also very powerful, which is likely why they are both extremely popular leaders on these boards.

I personally think philosophical is more flexible than industrious, but HC's early UU (even when not rushing) and UB are quite handy. I think Liz's UU comes at a great time in constrast to a unit like the navy seal, but the earlier the better is generally my feel on things.

I think any combination of traits like spiritual/financial/philosophical/charismatic is going to put you in a great situation to handle pretty much anything the game throws at you.

Can anyone argue that Gandhi isn't a supremely flexible leader? Hannibal? Abe might lose points for his late UU and UB, but his trait combo and starting techs are very flexible.

 

[CivCorpse]

Yeah, I suspect the flexibility people see in Financial leaders is a result of it being the only trait which gives a direct bonus to one of the three basic building blocks of a civ (ie. commerce, food, hammers).

If there was a trait which gave bonus food or hammers, then I'd expect that to feature heavily in a list of most flexible leaders.



Well, it doesn't demand an SE (in the way that Fin demands a CE), so it's flexible in the sense that it's effective in any type of economy.

And there are all manner of interesting tricks you can pull off with the Philosophical trait.

But most flexible?

To me, Spiritual seems the one which offers the most flexibility, since it allows you to switch your empire between War/Peace, Commerce/GP, etc. at the drop of a hat.

And, even more so than with Philosophical, there are loads of clever tricks you can use if you're Spiritual (I have KMad to thank for teaching me many of them ).

On the other hand, I'm a huge fan of the trait, while most people seem to rate it a lot lower, so maybe I'm just biased.

(Or maybe most people just don't know how to get the best out of it... )

Very good points...if there was only a leader with both the financial AND philosophical trait. Wow, that leader would be extra flexible...too bad Firaxis didn't make this trait combo available.

 

[CivCorpse]

We could go back and forth forever on this topic but to what point except sometimes it's fun to

That requires access to horses and researching Horseback Riding, a dead end tech

 

[madscientist]

That requires access to horses and researching Horseback Riding, a dead end tech