Most overpowered leaders

[madscientist]

OK, with all the threads going on I thought this would an interesting concept for discussion. The most overpowered leaders for the following

1) War-Mongering

2) Teching

3) Culture

4) WonderSpamming

5) Best early start

6) Best mid-game.

7) Best late-game

8) Pangea Map

9) Acheopolego

10) Continents.

Then give me the best leader to handle all of those together and should be competitive/dominant in each one. It has been discussed in a previous thread and the OP had an idea for the leader I never thought of but makes sense. I'll say who the all-arround best leader in (IMHO) later (PS, the leader is not in my ten list below).

1) Genghis Khan
2) Elizabeth
3) Pericles
4) Ramses
5) HC
6) Napolean
7) Lincoln
8) Agustus
9) Willem
10) Hannibal

I know alot to discuss, but hell it is fun!

 

[Florian]

Does being best at something make a leader "overpowered"?

 

[BARBEERIAN]

OK, with all the threads going on I thought this would an interesting concept for discussion. The most overpowered leaders for the following

1) War-Mongering

2) Teching

3) Culture

4) WonderSpamming

5) Best early start

6) Best mid-game.

7) Best late-game

8) Pangea Map

9) Acheopolego

10) Continents.

Then give me the best leader to handle all of those together and should be competitive/dominant in each one. It has been discussed in a previous thread and the OP had an idea for the leader I never thought of but makes sense. I'll say who the all-arround best leader in (IMHO) later (PS, the leader is not in my ten list below).

1) Genghis Khan
2) Elizabeth
3) Pericles
4) Ramses
5) HC
6) Napolean
7) Lincoln
8) Agustus
9) Willem
10) Hannibal

I know alot to discuss, but hell it is fun!

1) Either Roman leader. Praets are just too easy. Even a shock axe isn't much of a threat.

2) Pericles (for SE only though). Phi/Cre is great for getting some disgustingly early Scientists running and really opening up a big early tech lead.

3) For sure Pericles. Phi for more artists, Cre for cheap culture buildings, and the Odeon which allows 2 more artists to be run early.

4) Bismark for Wonderspamming. Ind for obvious reasons, expansive for the worker bonus (get more workers out chopping/ making hammer improvements faster).

5) Huayna Capac. Quechia's are so effective for their cost for rushing, barb defense (until axes show up) and the Terrace UB being a +2 culture granary he's by far the easiest to start out.

6) Isabella for Mid-game. Very focused mid-game war power with Conquistadors, and siege units with the Citadel bonus (Izzy gets CR-III siege right out of the gate with the right civics or a settled GG.

7) Best late game would probably be either German leader. A big hammer bonus UB, and a Tank UU that crushes other tanks with ease make them very powerful late game vs. equal opponents.

8) Pangaea is a tough one but probably Julius Caesar. Praets and Org for easy domination

9) Archi is Willem's terrain. Dyke's give him far more hammers than any opponent will possibly have.

10) Continents are tougher to pinpoint. I can't really pick one that stands out above anyone else.

*Overall best leader* - IMHO it's Pericles. He's versatile for early war or tech races, produces culture in disgusting amounts, and is a solid all around leader on almost any map type.

 

[InFlux5]

Does being best at something make a leader "overpowered"?

I agree that the post is a little too far-reaching; who's to say anyone is overpowered in every one of those categories you list?

In my view there are only two overpowered civs in the game: Rome and the Inca. They are both overpowered because of their early UUs which allow them to walk all over their neighbors. Since the Ancient/Classical period is so vital to success, the game is effectively nerfed with either of these leaders.

 

[ParadigmShifter]

I've only got warlords, so here's my list:

1) Rome, cliche
2) Liz, runner up: Mansa. 3rd place: Wang
3) Not really played much culture, but when I tried it was Liz again
4) I like Stalin for wonderspam myself
5) Capac at monarch and above. Any Egyptian at prince and below
6) Mid game, Ragnar probably. CR3 berserkers->grenadiers
7) What's the late game It's just mopping up or getting surprise invasions then I find. Probably Washington though
8) Never played pangaea, Cyrus probably
9) Ragnar again
10) Ragnar again

Best overall though? Probably Gandhi.

 

[madscientist]

Maybe overpowered is much, how about just best at each.

 

[ParadigmShifter]

On warlords I also like Alexander, aggressive and philo, solid traits. Average UU and UB though. I tend not to play as leaders/civs I already have entries in my HOF table for. When I fill it up, I'll give Alex a few more goes.

 

[Sjaramei]

Genghis is horrible..... I'll give him "ok" at warmongering, but for some serious stuff Hannibal, Napoleon, Lincoln, Shaka and the likes are much better. (I would even pick Isabella over him.... )

I've begun playing the traits more so most leaders work for me regardless of my "tactic". Map is more important, the only leader who can be a bit "overpowered" is Ragnar on water maps. Mass berserkers in a decent army city so you get lots of CR promos (2 should be easy) and upgrade them to rifles/infantry etc and go have fun with your new uber-mobile army. (Put a medic in the stack too, you can kill insane amounts of army with minimal losses with this stack)

Incas and Rome is a bit over the top too, but thats more the UU than the leaders

(For the rest of the list most leaders can work, Creative, Philosophical and Industrious for Culture, wonderspamming is a no-brainer. Play the traits you have and the map, you can do anything if you play right. Just keep away from protective horrible trait in a leader )

 

[madscientist]

On warlords I also like Alexander, aggressive and philo, solid traits. Average UU and UB though. I tend not to play as leaders/civs I already have entries in my HOF table for. When I fill it up, I'll give Alex a few more goes.

Al is the leader I was thinking of who can play all those games. Agressive and Philosophical make a very stronge combination. The UB offers alot (extra artists, extra happiness later) and the Phalynx in BTS are unstoppable except by certain UUs (Prats, Dogs, Numidians). He has no advantage at the mid-game or Archeoplego map, but noone I can see has an advantage the entire game.

Oh, Yes the Mighty Khan is still the best war-monger IMO.

OK, perhaps an odd thread.

 

[oyzar]

Overpowered is just HC and at dom victories the praet guys are pretty good too. Nothing screams overpowered/exploit like HC on marathon... It is a reason he dominates in every single catagory on the Hof. Of course hatty is pretty damn good as well but for some reason she isn't even mentioned in this thread. If you aren't going to use exploitquechas on marathon then lizzy is pretty good for culture teching and late game with ghandi(or saladin in vanilla) also being ok at culture. For wonder spamming i would go with ramsess if you somehow feel starting with 2-3 capitals if wrong. If you don't then there is only one guy with industrious and starting with multiple capitals. The best late game of course is a non-existant one which means either of the romans(warlords augustus is probably best due to having the best trait combination of the romans), hatty or many more. If you like a good warmonger game without using warriors hatty or augustus are pretty damn good... And you know what? The best leaders for pangea is also the best warmongers which means the romans agen rear their ugly head with hatty and huyana getting honorable mentions for obvious reasons...

On archpilango i would probably want Wilhelm or Ragnar and on continents either of the dominating fighters would be rather ok although huyana is obviously the top dog.. Personaly i like Wilhelm's traits allot though so i wouldn't fault people for picking him(although they obviously have to take notice of the exploitivness of huyana against AI).

The funny thing is that if i was playing MP most of the considerations would totally change but i am pretty sure this is not what this thread is about...

How can you say one of the khans are the best warmongers? Hatty have better traits and better UU(through straight comparison). Warlords Augustus and huyana is laughing off him too..

 

[ParadigmShifter]

Right, I didn't realise the odeon replaced the colloseum and not the theatre, 2 extra artists very good for culture, hmm, may give that a whirl in my next culture game (although construction is a bit off the culture tech path - code of laws is probably more useful for caste system).

Alex is flexible, rather like Liz. My only culture win (on vanilla no less) was with Alex. My other win with him was a domination near miss (didn't want to backstab Roosevelt who had been a good ally) which turned into a space win - my first win at prince. I've never lost with Alex.

 

[CivSetä]

1) Augustus
2) Lizzy (or Pericles)
3) Huyana
4) Hyuana
5) Hyuana
6) Zara or Ottomans
7) Willem (can there be too much hammers, it is almost overpowered!)
8) Higher levels: any Roman leader, Lower levels: any Persian leader
9) Willem
10) Zara

 

[futurehermit]

1) War-Mongering: Rome or Boudica; Kublai, Persia, Hatty (with horses)

2) Teching: Liz

3) Culture: HC, Liz

4) WonderSpamming: Any Ind leader; Roosevelt, Ramesses

5) Best early start: HC or, if you eliminate the "exploit" uu, creative leaders like Willem, Cathy, Hatty. Roosevelt is very flexible, so I would vote for him maybe.

6) Best mid-game: Liz/Frederick

7) Best late-game: Liz, USA

8) Pangea Map: Rome

9) Acheopolego: Dutch

10) Continents: Someone who can adapt; Liz, HC, Ramesses, Roosevelt


I would say the best/overpowered leader is the one that can adapt to any situation. For me I think of 3 main situations: Rushing, Rexing, and Coastal start. You could also add isolated start, although I don't play those out myself. So, what civ can rush, rex, or handle coastal starts all together and still do well? HC can rush (quechua) and coastal can go GLH/colossus. Rexing he does ok. Liz doesn't have a great rush or rex. She has an ok coastal opening. She gets stronger as the game goes on imo. These two are my top choices, but I also think that Roosevelt has a lot of adaptability.

Ok, let me break it down more.

To rush, you need a decent uu and/or good opening techs (mining/ag/hunt). Creative helps. I like to have a horse based UU in case I don't have copper. So, Persia, Egypt and to a lesser extent Mongolia, Carthage I like as rushing civs. I especially like Hatty, Kublai, and Cathy has a strong rush too although she may have to rely on conventional chariots. I think the strongest rush though goes to Hatty, especially if horses are in the capital bfc.

Rexing you need to be able to capture land quickly and pay the bills. Creative helps a lot. Here I like Darius, Dutch, Cathy. I think Dutch are the strongest at REXing though. Creative + financial is nice for rexing.

Coastal starts I like Roosevelt a lot. Industrious helps for GLH/Colossus. Organized for cheap lighthouses. He starts with fishing.

I think a leader that does all of these well is tough. Fishing is great for coastal, but bad for rushing/rexing. If I had to pick a leader though that could start inland or on the coast, I would pick someone who had fishing and ag. Food asap is too important. For coastal starts the GLH isn't boosted by any resource, so industrious is really important. Industrious doesn't do a lot for rushing or rexing per se, but if you nab certain wonders along the way, it can help a lot (e.g., oracle->col).

So, ideally I'd want fishing-ag; however, i like starting with hunting for the intel because then you can plan your strategy much faster! Argh!

I think this is why it is so hard to pick someone who shines across the board.

Mining, Ag, Hunt, Fish are the techs I would be ok starting with. Wheel is handy, but not necessary. It's only really good if paired with ag or fish and you get floodplains so you can start with pottery, esp if financial. Myst I don't like because early religion is a gamble on higher levels.

Ind, Phil, Fin, Org, Cre, Spir are the traits I would be ok starting with.

My preference is to play a leader that has min/hunt or ag/hunt and to reload coastal starts I like to rush or rex. that is my style. land is power.

I've never been able to settle on a leader that satisfies everything I like. I couldn't even custom make one.

If I had to, I'd pick hunt/ag cre/agg with war chariots as my uu. I care much less about my ub. However, this set-up sucks for isolated or coastal starts! You can see here why I like hatty, kublai, darius. I like hunt-cre to get intel and fast setup asap. Good to know if rushing or rexing and where. I like ag for worker-growth first. I like agg in case I rush with axes and war chariots in case i have horses instead of copper.

For coastal, I'd want fish/min ind/org with a later uu. I like Roosey here. Hannibal is ok although getting GLH is tough.

Sorry for rambling!

 

[DaveMcW]

1. HC
2. HC
3. HC
4. HC
5. HC
6. HC
7. HC
8. HC
9. Willem
10. HC

 

[oyzar]

Coastal don't stop rushing or rexing pretty much.. Heck if you start with fishing and have a plains hill under or near you with a forest on top it, they can be pretty damn fast... And yes davidMcW is right cept there is a spattering of romans on larger maps....

 

[madscientist]

Oyzar, I can pretty much accept all you said.

I will however make the argument for the Mighty Kahn though.

1) He is agressive. Free combat II promotion, fast barracks. Fast drydocks if we have to deal with destroyers and battleships.
2) UU is not a bad unit that others say. THey are immune to terrain and can shred resources like crazy, plus they do a number on seige weapons. They also get ot the front faster than any other UU except for Impi.
3) UB, extra 2 XP for mounted units.
4) Faster GGs with Imperialistic trait. Settle them in 2 different cities and you are pumping out some nasty promoted units even without theocracy/vassalage.

Now let's discuss HBR and IW. HBR takes a little onger to tech but considering you have to locate and hookup the iron, you will have HAs out faster than swords (assuming you have horses). You also open up the Ger, so the mongol strat is to beeline HBR, just like Rome, Celts or MONTY beelines IW.

Kahn is a vicious warring machine, the more he wars the stronger he gets. Rome will eventually fade militarily once the Prat era is gone (agressive shock promoted axes or HAs are not that bad against them). Formation Mongol Spears eat Egyptian Chariots for breakfast, and the Keshik run them down.

The only time The Mongol horde slows a bit is near the end but you should have an excess of setteld GGs there.

GK is supported in threedifferent warring direction, the agressive trait, the GER, and Imperialistic trait (which is greatly underated for war-mongering).

 

[johnny_rico]

1. Boudica/Shaka
2. Darius
3. Pericles
4. DeGaulle/Ramses
5. Huayna
6. Napoleon
7. Liz/Frederick
8. Rome/Charlemagne/Zara Yaqob
9. Ragnar
10. Isabella/Hannibal

Best overall leaders: Ragnar, Brennus, Pericles, Zara Yaqob, Mehmed, Pacal II, Churchill, Washington, Darius, Augustus, Asoka, Frederick, Lincoln, Roosevelt

My winner is Zara Yaqob: Great UB, cheap libraries, courthouses, theatres, colosseums, and factories, a solid UU. He can run SE or CE. All victory conditions are open to him. He can collect a lot of real estate early and backfill all the while being able to afford it and defend it effectively. He is one of the few leaders you don't have to start a game with a particular strategy in mind. Just go with the flow and make smart decisions and you'll have success. His versatility enables a freedom you don't get with most other leaders. This is the guy I usually choose when taking stabs at emperor and immortal.

 

[DaveMcW]

Rome will eventually fade militarily once the Prat era is gone.

Rome should have the game wrapped up once Prats expire at Rifling.

 

[madscientist]

Well, I knew it could be a confusing post but I am looking at two different directions

It is obvious to me that Futurehermit is rather indecisive who he prefers while on the other hand I think Dave is pretty clear.

 

[Molybdeus]

1. Cyrus
2. Darius
3. Pericles
4. Huayna Capac
5. Lincoln
6. Elizabeth
7. Elizabeth
8. Shaka
9. Hannibal
10. Various

1) He is agressive. Free combat II promotion, fast barracks. Fast drydocks if we have to deal with destroyers and battleships.
2) UU is not a bad unit that others say. THey are immune to terrain and can shred resources like crazy, plus they do a number on seige weapons. They also get ot the front faster than any other UU except for Impi.
3) UB, extra 2 XP for mounted units.
4) Faster GGs with Imperialistic trait. Settle them in 2 different cities and you are pumping out some nasty promoted units even without theocracy/vassalage.

Virtually all of those are "win-more" abilities, though. Let's say that there was a leader that let you have a stack of 1,000 units at the beginning of the game. Except that you couldn't afford to pay those units, nor capture cities with them, or even pillage with them. Would it be worth playing that leader? No, because all of that military power would not ultimately win the game for you.

Genghis is -on paper- a better military leader than Ramesses or Darius. But Ramesses and Darius don't need to have their UU, UB, and both traits all be military related. They can destroy you early with their UU's alone. After that they can use their other abilities to build a technological or cultural powerhouse, whereas Genghis has nothing to use to sustain his economy. No cheap buildings, no upkeep savings, no financial bonuses, nothing.