Most Flexible Leader?
- Thread starter Hereditary Rule
- Start date
King of Town
Adventuring
If spiritual and philo are the most flexible traits to win with, then wouldn't gandhi be everyones choice, and HC not be in the conversation at all? You'd have culture from religion, so that would mean HC's UB wouldn't be neccesary, and though quechas are good I've never found myself at a disadvantage to not have them. I play at a lower difficulty ( noble) so maybe I am just having a different experience. Everytime I play a non spiritual leader I regret it.
The Rook
King
- Joined
- Nov 6, 2007
- Messages
- 788
I'm a little surprised that Gandhi hasn't had more support in this thread. Spiritual and Philosophical are ideal traits for a SE. The Fast Worker is an excellent UU too. It will always be utilised irrespective of strategy, and it never expires. "Culture from religion" isn't dependable though at the higher difficulties. Unless you start with an Oasis, the AI will likely reach Meditation/Polytheism before you, and worker techs tend to be vital at the start of the game.
Quechuas are more powerful at the higher difficulty levels. Above Monarch the AI starts with Archery, so you will only (occasionally) see Barbarian Warriors, and the Quechua gets a 100% strength bonus against Archers. Also, the AI tends to expand (much) faster at Emperor and above, so the chance of a Quechua rush can be helpful to claim territiory. At Monarch and below it would generally be easier just to pump out settlers and grab the best spots before the AI.
madscientist
RPC Supergenius
One preference I have for Asoka rather than Gandhi is th Org trait. For a massive empire the choices are either an organized leader or State Property. Asoka gives more flexibility in that you can utilize corps without having to kill your economy. Gandhi is stronger with a smaller empire while Asoka can run a big or small empire equally well. I do confess though that I have a preference for the organized trait in general.
KMadCandy
giggling permanoob
if i had to pick one favorite leader it would probably be gandhi, but my favorite games aren't typically bonking people over the head. so i had to think for this question an awfully long time, this is an entirely different question. because of how i play, anybody who's not spiritual is just off the list. i like to play as liz, and HC is fun (even tho i can't q-rush to save my life), but they get anarchy so they're not the most flexible for me. i'm supposed to answer who would give me the best chance of winning, not necessarily who i think would be the most flexible for an expert who knows what they're doing.
i'd go with Asoka. i didn't expect to like him when i first tried him, probably just bias because he was my favorite color but he wasn't gandhi, which threw me off
. but i surprise myself with how well i do every time i'm asoka and go to war. spiritual lets me better control the timing of the wars, and do the swaps for troops when i want to, and org lets me afford the whole thing and get new cities up to speed quick, especially when i have to consider all the map types. i'm not an early rusher, so the fact that the indian UU isn't an early military unit doesn't hinder me a bit. i adore fast workers in peacetime, and during a war my army corps of engineers does help my soldiers fight better, so they are military support -- they just happen to be civilian *giggle*. but in peaceful games i can do lots of things like pretend to be philo by popping in and out of pac/caste etc, and altho i don't always notice org in the way i do gandhi's philo, it does always help to have it there, so for me asoka's really flexible and isn't a case of "great for war but i feel stuck in other types of games", like cyrus is.
so, given that i'd have to go beat people up in some games (gosh, how bloodthirsty y'all are!
) and the variety of maps, sign me up for Asoka. but i notice i'm not the only one. so if we have to all use different colors, i want dibs on the original Indian purple please. it's really pretty and that's likely a bigger priority to me than it is to you guys!
ps Winston Hughes your post made me blush and grin. and, you probably guessed, giggle too. i love it, something i said has helped someone who's taught me so much, learn some tricks himself!
i'd go with Asoka. i didn't expect to like him when i first tried him, probably just bias because he was my favorite color but he wasn't gandhi, which threw me off
. but i surprise myself with how well i do every time i'm asoka and go to war. spiritual lets me better control the timing of the wars, and do the swaps for troops when i want to, and org lets me afford the whole thing and get new cities up to speed quick, especially when i have to consider all the map types. i'm not an early rusher, so the fact that the indian UU isn't an early military unit doesn't hinder me a bit. i adore fast workers in peacetime, and during a war my army corps of engineers does help my soldiers fight better, so they are military support -- they just happen to be civilian *giggle*. but in peaceful games i can do lots of things like pretend to be philo by popping in and out of pac/caste etc, and altho i don't always notice org in the way i do gandhi's philo, it does always help to have it there, so for me asoka's really flexible and isn't a case of "great for war but i feel stuck in other types of games", like cyrus is.so, given that i'd have to go beat people up in some games (gosh, how bloodthirsty y'all are!
) and the variety of maps, sign me up for Asoka. but i notice i'm not the only one. so if we have to all use different colors, i want dibs on the original Indian purple please. it's really pretty and that's likely a bigger priority to me than it is to you guys!ps Winston Hughes your post made me blush and grin. and, you probably guessed, giggle too. i love it, something i said has helped someone who's taught me so much, learn some tricks himself!
DigitalBoy
Emperor
- Joined
- Jun 29, 2006
- Messages
- 1,347
Maybe because he's not financial. Because not having financial instantly discredits you.
(Incidentally, Mansa Musa may be a pretty flexible leader with Fin/Spi and some decent early uniques.)And I agree with the above posters regarding Asoka. I think Spiritual + Organized gives you more variety of options, especially involving having a larger empire, than Spiritual + Philisophical.
madscientist
RPC Supergenius
if i had to pick one favorite leader it would probably be gandhi, but my favorite games aren't typically bonking people over the head. so i had to think for this question an awfully long time, this is an entirely different question. because of how i play, anybody who's not spiritual is just off the list. i like to play as liz, and HC is fun (even tho i can't q-rush to save my life), but they get anarchy so they're not the most flexible for me. i'm supposed to answer who would give me the best chance of winning, not necessarily who i think would be the most flexible for an expert who knows what they're doing.
i'd go with Asoka. i didn't expect to like him when i first tried him, probably just bias because he was my favorite color but he wasn't gandhi, which threw me off
so, given that i'd have to go beat people up in some games (gosh, how bloodthirsty y'all are!
ps Winston Hughes your post made me blush and grin. and, you probably guessed, giggle too. i love it, something i said has helped someone who's taught me so much, learn some tricks himself!
Exactly what happened to me with Asoka. Never expected much with him, but the very first time I played him I ended up with a domination win on an archeopolego map in Vanilla. Domination 2 more times in Warlord, although I have yet to play him in BTS.
KMadCandy
giggling permanoob
you were the first to mention Asoka. you're okay with letting me have dibs on the purple color right? it'll earn you +diplo modifiers with me. they have no value but they're all i can offer.
futurehermit
Deity
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2006
- Messages
- 5,724
Organized more versatile than philosophical? I don't buy that one at all.
More/earlier GSs?
More/earlier GPs?
More/earlier GAs?
More/earlier later-game GAges?
Better shot at corporations?
More/earlier GSs?
More/earlier GPs?
More/earlier GAs?
More/earlier later-game GAges?
Better shot at corporations?
KMadCandy
giggling permanoob
for me. i'm not good (understatement!!!) at war, and we're including the need to win using warmongering on a bunch of map types. i'm also not great (understatement!!!) at optimizing SE for different situations, particularly warmongering, in the way i am spiritual. and for me, spiritual has got to be in there. org makes the types of victories that are toughest easier to handle in a way that philo doesn't, because it's just there and does the work for the permanoob. i wasn't trying to "sell" it to you as a real argument, just to answer the question about what gives me versatility to do different things successfully. for folks who know how to bulb to military victory, philo rocks hardcore! someday i'd like to be one of those folks myself. i can dream, and these boards (including posts from you!) are helping me get there in my slowpoke way.
futurehermit
Deity
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2006
- Messages
- 5,724
haha! different strokes for different folks.
organized is a great trait, don't get me wrong, i just don't see it as overly versatile. it helps cut costs which is great, but tbh it doesn't do much for you if you are going for a cultural victory whereas philo can be leveraged in many different ways, including yes lightbulbing to military techs to go on a rampage.
organized is a great trait, don't get me wrong, i just don't see it as overly versatile. it helps cut costs which is great, but tbh it doesn't do much for you if you are going for a cultural victory whereas philo can be leveraged in many different ways, including yes lightbulbing to military techs to go on a rampage.
madscientist
RPC Supergenius
To me yes, organized let's you claim more territory without breaking the economy. Cheaper and thus earlier courthouses let you expands earlier. Cheaper lighthouses fuels a very early economy via the sea (often before you even build your first library). The kicker is the cheap factoires that jump starts the critical industrialization era. Regarding the corps, all you need are 2 GPs, one a merchant which you can get from economics and hold. The GE is trickier I agree, but earlier engineers (from fast factory) in an GP farm can get it faster than a PHIL leader. Also, having corps with a PHIL leader is useless if you have to run SP because of the size of the empire. By the factory time the PHIL leader would have spit out more GPs and thus takes alot longer to get the GE post-factory than a non-PHIL (I am I clear on that?). Also the larger the empire, the faster you can tech which would probably out-leverage the faster PHIL bulb approach (Assuming the PHIL empire is smaller).
Phil offers faster GPs which means earlier shrines (if appropriate), earlier academies (a big advantage), and other great benefits of the GPs. The fast universities is a big edge, however any leader that beelines liberalism generally get's education first (the AI is very slow on this) and a head start over the AI on building them, even if at conventional speed.
Also, I will agree that PHIL(and financial) is a more powerful trait than organized.
But my bottom line opinion, yes organized is more flexible because it allows a bigger and more affordable empire. The more land you have, the more options.
KMadCandy
giggling permanoob
you blew it, silly! fh will think that is absurd, he's the one that likes compact empires he can keep nice and tidy.
i do hold on to great folks for zillions of turns longer than i used to, waiting on corporations, that's for sure. even more when i'm not philo. first merchant? take a nap there buddy, i don't care how poor i am, if i can't be 100% sure i get a twin for you, ain't gonna use you til medicine.
The problem is that everything in this game is driven by commerce. This means that traits like financial, organized and philosophical are doing the same thing, just in different ways.
Even spiritual gives a bonus to money/research/production, but it depends more on how often you switch civics than the others.
Expansive also boosts everything simply by allowing more people. So does anything that gives happy faces. The traits all do the same damn thing, its just different flavors.
This makes things boring. In fact, the game as a whole is already starting to lose my interest. Not enough variety.
Even spiritual gives a bonus to money/research/production, but it depends more on how often you switch civics than the others.
Expansive also boosts everything simply by allowing more people. So does anything that gives happy faces. The traits all do the same damn thing, its just different flavors.
This makes things boring. In fact, the game as a whole is already starting to lose my interest. Not enough variety.
madscientist
RPC Supergenius
FH likes compact empires? With his signature
One other point I didn't mention is I used to play huge maps which meant extremely large empires, thus that may explain my preference for organized.
I now play standard sized maps (got tired of my BTS games choking at the end with my computer) and found it more rewarding (and varied).
madscientist
RPC Supergenius
You could say that with all traits though, even agressive. Simply use you military force to acquire more commerce from a neighbor. Not exactly the polite way, but just as efficient.
absimiliard
Warlord
Gotta go against MadScientist.
If you are saying Organized is more flexible because it allows for "a bigger and more affordable empire," then I think you are mistaking flexibility for power.
Sure it might be a stronger trait, but it doesn't help if your game circumstances force you into a tiny civ. In fact, if size it's main selling point, I would offer that it's not a particularly flexible trait at all.
That said I think this whole thread is beginning to suffer from confusion of "flexible" with "powerful". Some folks keep trying to drag it back to flexible, but many of us are really arguing about powerful. The whole debate over financial with regards to Vicky and HC seems to speak to it. (and I got involved in that myself) It can be very tough to keep effective and flexible separate in my head, and obviously I'm not alone in that.
Ideally a "Most Flexible" leader isn't going to be one of the terribly well-thought-of ones. All the really powerful leaders focus a bit too much. I suspect a truly flexible leader, defined by mid-level capability to execute any and all strategies, is never going to be a 1st Tier leader. To be 1st Tier you really need to be the best at something, you need to be specialized. A flexible leader is going to be one who can play in each arena, but not as well as the specialized leader in the field.
It's almost like evolution. Specialize for a particular environment and your species can exploit it most efficiently, and when in that environment is the best there is. What we want is not to find a specialized expert in anything, we want the species (like the rat or pigeon) that while not the best in any environment has a very wide range of environments in which they can be 2nd best.
Generalization vs. specialization, that's what we should be thinking about. And while I pointed to HC as an excellent choice for "flexible leader", in retrospect Financial isn't very flexible, it's really a choice for specializing to an environment.
-abs
If you are saying Organized is more flexible because it allows for "a bigger and more affordable empire," then I think you are mistaking flexibility for power.
Sure it might be a stronger trait, but it doesn't help if your game circumstances force you into a tiny civ. In fact, if size it's main selling point, I would offer that it's not a particularly flexible trait at all.
That said I think this whole thread is beginning to suffer from confusion of "flexible" with "powerful". Some folks keep trying to drag it back to flexible, but many of us are really arguing about powerful. The whole debate over financial with regards to Vicky and HC seems to speak to it. (and I got involved in that myself) It can be very tough to keep effective and flexible separate in my head, and obviously I'm not alone in that.
Ideally a "Most Flexible" leader isn't going to be one of the terribly well-thought-of ones. All the really powerful leaders focus a bit too much. I suspect a truly flexible leader, defined by mid-level capability to execute any and all strategies, is never going to be a 1st Tier leader. To be 1st Tier you really need to be the best at something, you need to be specialized. A flexible leader is going to be one who can play in each arena, but not as well as the specialized leader in the field.
It's almost like evolution. Specialize for a particular environment and your species can exploit it most efficiently, and when in that environment is the best there is. What we want is not to find a specialized expert in anything, we want the species (like the rat or pigeon) that while not the best in any environment has a very wide range of environments in which they can be 2nd best.
Generalization vs. specialization, that's what we should be thinking about. And while I pointed to HC as an excellent choice for "flexible leader", in retrospect Financial isn't very flexible, it's really a choice for specializing to an environment.
-abs
Hereditary Rule
Warlord
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2007
- Messages
- 294
Under this line of thinking, the first leader that popped into my head was Brennus. Spiritual for whatever suits you, CHA for larger cities for whatever you need. Along these same lines is Washington (+Happy and +Health) for bigger cities. Bigger cities make whatever victory you're pursing easier. Also in this boat would be any leader whose UB gives health or happy above the norm. Obviously there is no one right answer to this question but it there has certainly been some interesting discussion so far.
absimiliard
Warlord
Over time I'm slipping towards Ghandi as a possible candidate.
SPI is a very flexible trait, it can be used usefully in a number of game circumstances and is never really useless if you know how to use it.
PHI is also fairly useful in most circumstances. Whether isolated or on a Pangaea, whether going for culture or conquest, PHI serves most goals and environments pretty well.
The UU for the Indians is pretty damn useful in all circumstances too. Never bad to have a fast-worker when the alternative is a normal one. They're just great in all games.
PHI/CHA like Lincoln isn't bad either, but I don't like how late-game America is. Your point about CHA = +Happy being always good is ever so true.
-abs
SPI is a very flexible trait, it can be used usefully in a number of game circumstances and is never really useless if you know how to use it.
PHI is also fairly useful in most circumstances. Whether isolated or on a Pangaea, whether going for culture or conquest, PHI serves most goals and environments pretty well.
The UU for the Indians is pretty damn useful in all circumstances too. Never bad to have a fast-worker when the alternative is a normal one. They're just great in all games.
PHI/CHA like Lincoln isn't bad either, but I don't like how late-game America is. Your point about CHA = +Happy being always good is ever so true.
-abs
madscientist
RPC Supergenius
I had thought of Washington because of the fast early city size. The faster you can build up, the faster you can do anything. His limit is the late UU (the UB is pretty powerful however). His severe limit is the isolated start where his traits and lack of early UU/UB will generally keep him very far behind in tech.
Similar threads
