Strategy: Narrow vs Flexible

[Molybdeus]

There are two main strategies for choosing a leader. First, there is picking a narrow strategy (like playing Boudicca of Rome) and working that narrow strategy to victory. Second, you can play a flexible leader and take what the game gives you. An obvious example being Mehmed, who can comfortably run any type of economy and is a good warmonger or builder.

It seems to me that people seem to strongly prefer the former, and eschew unfocused leaders like Suryavarman. In my experience it's easier to get a high score or win in multiplayer with the focused leaders but it's easier to win consistently -on Monarch and Emperor, anyway- with a flexible leader. (Assuming their traits and uniques are equally good, of course.) Is the antipathy for flexible leaders due to other people playing a lot of multiplayer or score-focused games, or are my perceptions of the merits of flexibility and focus flawed?

 

[nullspace]

I like the idea that flexible leaders are good for consistent wins, and narrow (rigid?) leaders are good for big wins. If your narrow leader plays on a map against opponents that are a good fit for your strategy, it's a fast and dominating win. But if the map is a bad fit, you don't have any decent alternatives. But a flexible leader can do at least OK in many more situations.

It may not be that most people prefer to play a narrow strategy, it's just that narrow strategies are easier to discuss on forums . You can write them down and argue about them without ever starting up CIV. But a flexible strategy depends on the map and may change as the game goes on based on new events or new information.

 

[Turquoiside]

Mehmed is my favorite leader. From that, you should guess my position.

My problem is that I don't really warmonger enough, so I don't about how playing a narrow Boudica is good. I am too inexperienced to give a verdict.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Mehmed is my favorite leader. From that, you should guess my position.

My problem is that I don't really warmonger enough, so I don't about how playing a narrow Boudica is good. I am too inexperienced to give a verdict.

One could argue the ottomans have an optimal course if they have neighbors - fast gunpowder and then trouncing them. Jans are crazy strong, and if you do something like build cats in advance, hit gunpowder in the 500-800 AD range, and then mass draft jans, you can strike with unbelievable, practically un-countered force for a long time.

 

[Molybdeus]

One could argue the ottomans have an optimal course if they have neighbors - fast gunpowder and then trouncing them. Jans are crazy strong, and if you do something like build cats in advance, hit gunpowder in the 500-800 AD range, and then mass draft jans, you can strike with unbelievable, practically un-countered force for a long time.

My point wasn't that Mehmed has no good assets (Hammam and Janissaries are both awesome) but rather that he doesn't force you into any type of play, whereas Boudicca of Rome, Shaka, Qin (Warlords version,) etc. do.

I have had better results with Suryavarman than Gilgamesh, for example, because I will inevitably fail to get copper for Vultures in some games, while Suryavarman doesn't rely on getting ivory for War Elephants. I've won all of my games as the alien and roughly half with Gilgamesh.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

My point wasn't that Mehmed has no good assets (Hammam and Janissaries are both awesome) but rather that he doesn't force you into any type of play, whereas Boudicca of Rome, Shaka, Qin (Warlords version,) etc. do.

I have had better results with Suryavarman than Gilgamesh, for example, because I will inevitably fail to get copper for Vultures in some games, while Suryavarman doesn't rely on getting ivory for War Elephants. I've won all of my games as the alien and roughly half with Gilgamesh.

It's a good point that some leaders are more "feast or famine" than others. However, even if you get no iron boudica of rome is winnable if you play well. I only started winning with some decent consistency on immortal recently, but one of those games was shaka in LHC (who, IMO, is more versatile actually, since he gets guaranteed < maintenance extremely early and EXP is underrated). Actually LHC shaka was a major learning experience for me. My 2nd attempt with it was right during a time where I changed some holes in my play.

Sumeria in particular is good. You can expand peacefully and rely on the obnoxious protective archers for protection, and the earlier and CHEAPER courthouse at priesthood will definitely help cover. If you're a little more inclined to micro, you can even whipchop those walls for gold, making sumeria quite ridiculously well rounded actually.

As you say though, mehmed is the epitome of balance. I'd say he's a little more geared toward peaceful expansion than average, with EXP and ORG. Sully is a bit more "bulb your way to jan rape" than Mehmed.

 

[noto2]

I was just thinking about this today. I was thinking that the strongest leaders in the game are the more flexible ones. Boudica and Lizzy are both super strong in their own right, the former for war and the latter for tech. But the wrong kind of start can really screw them over. Someone like Hannibal is a nice, flexible leader. He can fight pretty well, the numidian cavalry is a solid UU and CHA is a great war trait, and he also has a strong economy, with bigger early cities, the FIN trait, and extra trade routes due to his UB. Other examples of flexible leaders might be Hammurabi, Ragnar, Augustus....

 

[PhroX]

I prefer the flexible leaders: Mehmed, Asoka, Hannibal, Lizzy etc. I don't neceesarily do better with them, but find them more enjoyable to play. The highly focused leaders (and indeed civilisations, eg the mongols) - in particular those focused towards war - are really pushed down certain strategies while I prefer to just "play the map".

Part of this, I'm sure, is because I usually play random leaders on relatively unpredictable maps (Fractal, B&S, PerfectWorld etc), rather than starting a game with a fixed objective and a setup favourable to that.

 

[UWHabs]

You always have to be flexible.

That being said, just because you play Boudica of Rome doesn't mean you still can't be flexible about it. I've started games like, "Hmm, I feel like killing people. Let's play Augustus of Rome." and ended with a cultural victory. I often start with one philosophy, but the map will steer me very far away from that.

 

[noto2]

Of course you can win a space race with Boudica, or cultural victory with Gengis, I was just saying that playing a flexible leader often seems easier. It's easier to get consistent wins with them. Boudica is actually a tiny bit flexible as she is charismatic and starts with mysticism. CHA allows her bigger cities in the early game, and she can snag a religion. Thus if you wanted to build up an economy with her and not be a warmonger you would start with a +4 pop happy cap (+1 from trait, +1 from monument, +1 from religion, +1 from temple), which is a huge boost. So she actually does have some economic ability. Try finding flexibility in someone like Toku, though, or Gengis. Not there. Gengis I suppose can expand faster due to IMP, but that's a sure fire way to kill your research, and Toku has no help with the economy. Also, someone like Elizabeth has no help with warfare until rifling. So what if you're Lizzy and you get boxed in with 4 poor production cities, have fun fighting your way out of that

 

[Iranon]

I dislike leaders with mostly military benefits. Boudica, Genghis, Tokugawa, Churchill... they simply have too little going for them if warmongering isn't in the cards. Or even if it is - I often win my wars on the back of disposable siege units.
I prefer traits like ORG and SPI for warmongering - they might not kill things directly but they allow me to push my economy harder to craft the perfect war machine... an they're also good in a peaceful game.


Apart from that, I prefer leaders who suggest *some* focus. Montezuma or Peter for allowing a food-based economy to rock even in the end game. Isabelle or Elizabeth for getting to the perfect Renaissance bloothbath rather quickly.

Leaders like Suryavarman or Washington has dependable benefits but I miss the focus. Not a problem on settings where I'll be looking for opportunities... but often I find I get more out of leaders who enable me to force through a playstyle that takes great advantage of their benefits.