[BTS] The Worst Leader and Civilization

[floydmcw]

Sitting Bull is a very good high level leader

Is that because of PHI? Also I guess you don't have to worry about barbs when you can always build dog soldiers.

PRO 6 XP archers are nice, can they really help you win a war of conquest though?

 

[lymond]

Exactly. Philo and Dogs. Never have to worry about barbs or tech Archery.

Philo is a top tier trait..arguably the best and no Philo leader is bad.

 

[Fippy]

Yep and he starts with Agri and Fishing, can tech BW (or AH first if needed) for whips, chops and barb defense first.
With SB we can always play the map, no worries of losing a deity game early.

 

[krikav]

Don't forget the awesome city names.
That keeps you engaged in the game more easy.

 

[pi-r8]

Gilgamesh and Qin are not "the worst leaders". Wang Kon is an average leader.



I don't agree with this either ... any trait (even PRO) can be helpful but traits like AGG, IMP and ORG are not as useful as IND or CRE.

My stack ranking of traits is

CRE, IND
FIN, PHI, SPI
ORG
CHA, EXP, IMP
AGG, PRO

I mostly play Emperor games on standard speed fractal maps.

Consider this situation... you have IND, but no marble or stone. Your neighbor is Ramesses, and he does. He builds all the wonders, and very few units. You have copper. Wouldn't it be easier to build some AGG axes and take all his wonders, instead of trying to compete on his "home turf" of building wonders?

Or how about another situation. Low difficulty level, and lots of land to expand into. EXP and IMP are really nice to just spam workers/settlers and grow forever. Maybe that's "too easy" for experienced players, but it's a valid setting, and it's common in PBEM/Pitboss multiplayer games.

Actually I don't entirely disagree with your ranking. I agree that in general the economic traits are useful more often than the military ones, but there's too many situations where AGG or IMP are good for me to completely say they're bad. It's only PRO that really annoys me, and I think the vast majority of players share that opinion (that PRO is the worst by far). The other traits, everyone has their own opinion on them, so it's hard to come up with any conclusive ranking.

 

[pi-r8]

Thanks again everybody. So far, it seems, everybode has been treating leaders and civs as inseperably linked. I take away from that the assumption, that it's basically unheard of to mix leaders with other civs than their own, even though the game permits it? While it's certainly cheesy so combine more powerful combinations, if you are looking for the worst, I'm sure there must be another option, right?

I mean, if we combine the worst leader with the worst civ - especially if they make each other worse on top of it!

I've done a fair number of games with unrestricted leaders, mostly in multiplayer. I don't think it changes a lot. PRO is bad, mysticism is bad, and mixing them together is even worse, but there's no magic combination. Charlemagne, Saladin, and Boudicca are already about as close as you can get to the worst possible combo... maybe Charlemagne of Spain (with a non-fishing start) would be worse, but not by much.

edit: I meant Tokugawa instead of Boudicca, but Boudicca is also pretty bad.

 

[floydmcw]

I take away from that the assumption, that it's basically unheard of to mix leaders with other civs than their own, even though the game permits it?

People play unrestricted leaders. But it's hard to generalize unrestricted leaders, because there are so many (1768) possible combinations.

I've done a fair number of games with unrestricted leaders, mostly in multiplayer. I don't think it changes a lot. PRO is bad, mysticism is bad, and mixing them together is even worse, but there's no magic combination. Charlemagne, Saladin, and Boudicca are already about as close as you can get to the worst possible combo... maybe Charlemagne of Spain (with a non-fishing start) would be worse, but not by much.

How about Charlemagne of Celtia? Same starting techs and you trade Charlie's sole bright spot, the Rathaus, for the Dun.

 

[pi-r8]

How about Charlemagne of Celtia? Same starting techs and you trade Charlie's sole bright spot, the Rathaus, for the Dun.

Yeah, that would be a good candidate for worst possible combination.

 

[Fish Man]

Yeah, that would be a good candidate for worst possible combination.

Toku of Celts takes the cake if unrestricted leaders is on the table. The worst traits, the worst starting techs, and an absolutely irrelevant UU/UB? Might as well be playing barbs at that point.

 

[Hesha]

I thought Gallic Warriors are kinda good?

 

[krikav]

I thought Gallic Warriors are kinda good?

Can be, but very situational.
Swordsmen with guerilla2 and that double movement can be brutal on the right map.

I also find it highly annoying that the UU and UB doesn't go together that well... UB providing a benefit that the UU already has?
Doesn't feel like they thought that through too much.

 

[Fish Man]

Can be, but very situational.
Swordsmen with guerilla2 and that double movement can be brutal on the right map.

I also find it highly annoying that the UU and UB doesn't go together that well... UB providing a benefit that the UU already has?
Doesn't feel like they thought that through too much.

I think Gallics might actually have been really fun to use if they got G2 when built in a city with a dun. As it stands, yeah, 20% hill defense on some of your army isn't going to make any difference at all, and is pretty pathetic when it's literally the biggest advantage you've got.

 

[krikav]

Yes, but the gallic warrior can be promoted with guerilla2 straight out from the barracks.

 

[Fippy]

They are a fun unit (like Jaguars on forest maps, think that was Boreal?).
At 5xp they can have G3 which means 50% withdrawal chance (and 25% against hill cities i think), so especially with Boudi they are stacks of decent attackers that can surprise AIs with their movement, and are not dying that often.

They can also be built with just copper.
Celt starting techs are holding them back, sadly.

 

[lymond]

I think Gallics might actually have been really fun to use if they got G2 when built in a city with a dun. As it stands, yeah, 20% hill defense on some of your army isn't going to make any difference at all, and is pretty pathetic when it's literally the biggest advantage you've got.

Well, the dun bonus is redundant for the GWs. However, what would have been nice is for other melee units to actually get the G1 promo, as they can't otherwise. That way you could have a G2 axe moving along with your GWs. Enemy axes generally aren't inclined to attack GWs in hills due to their bonus, but having an axe or two move with them at the same speed would be nice for protection on non-hill tiles.

But yeah, GWs can be fun. It's all about the hill movement for tactics and G3 for withdrawal chance, which makes them quite interesting early. Boudi's are stronger, of course.

 

[drewisfat]

Going to have to stick with the boring answer of Toku here. In addition to the obvious reasons, Toku is also a great AI to have on the map, which obviously can't happen if you're him. Virtually guaranteed to be backwards, so he can absolutely save you in a game where you're too far behind to attack a normal AI.

I don't think Charlemagne is the worst. Sure all of his stuff is bad.... but it all syncs together. Imp for crazy aggressive settler spam, which leaves you vulnerable. Fortunately Hunting means Archery is one tech away. Fortunately you're PRO so you can be safer with fewer archers. Fortunately you've got Mysticism so you're faster to Masonry. Where you can then get cheaper PRO walls. Defending doesn't win wars.. but fortunately you're IMP so you can farm GGs efficiently while defending. Obviously overexpansion hurts your economy. Fortunately you've got Rathauses. Heck, there's even synergy with engineering giving you access to both your UU and cheaper PRO castles.
It gets really memetastic with early stone. You have Myst, so you're one tech from being able to build TGW, which turbocharges Charlie's niche of defend early and farm exp. Medieval wars are terrible - but bearable if you're running an espionage economy from TGW. You'll then actually want Engineering for that final synergy of 1/4 cost castles giving you +25% espionage.

I don't believe starting techs are more significant than traits. In fact, I don't believe that any of you believe that either

 

[Fippy]

In fact, I don't believe that any of you believe that either

Sometimes i'm not so sure
Izzy was listed as bad leader here and there.

 

[krikav]

Bad starting techs can really screw the game up early on, and sometimes good traits might not be enough to get back into the game.
But in alot of games, you limp along fine, and get out of the early game in ok shape.

 

[Anysense]

Sometimes i'm not so sure
Izzy was listed as bad leader here and there.

People often list Creative and Imperialistic as bad traits. There always was and will be a lot of bias in such discussions.

 

[rah]

I originally thought creative was a waste, but playing a lot of rando leaders lately and the cheap libraries early, along with not worrying about the second ring when settling has been quite enjoyable. Combining the two somewhat eliminates any fear from AI culture creep.
Imperialistic is still not a fav but far from worthless early, when it matters most.