Thoughts on the Strongest Leader in Warlords

[Duncan_Idaho]

Hmm, I was gonna say what Uberfish said - Elizabeth is the number one leader She is perhaps underestimated because most of the players are male.


Check out the Incan granary too. Combined with Huaina Capac's new features it could rock

Also, Tokugawa should not be unerestimated with both the protective and the aggressive features.

Gandhi could do wonders with philosophical and spiritual + fast workers I' ve just done one of my best games with Saladin who was exactly this

Alexander is a monster with philosophical/ aggressive too - it really allows a fast expand and then ownage with the wonders. You just need some luck/forests and perhaps resources to build them I never tried this on multyplayer but I think it's gonna work.

I still haven't tried the expansion, I'm very eager to though! My favourite civ have always been the Celts since they added them, I hope they are good now too

So, Elizabeth, Alexander, Gandhi and Huaina Capac are my favourites

 

[MazX_TheDog]

Um...Elizabeth had her traits changed. Thats why this thread is about warlords.

I like Victoria, as she has the Fin/Imp. Imp to grow, and Fin to keep in the green.

 

[morahed18]

Likewise the best religious leader was Saladin since with philosophical he could spawn prophets more quickly than any of the other Spiritual leaders, it's now Gandhi since he inherited those traits.

When I spoke of religious dominance, I was referring to the ability to spread one religion to a large enough majority of the world's nations for a successful diplomatic victory, in which case, I don't see how generating multiple great prophets makes any difference (one would be sufficient).

However, your comment suggests trying to found as many religions as possible. Is this an effective strategy? I've never actually tried it, but now that I think about it, controlling multiple holy cities early in the game could potentially result in huge financial gain. Is the cost of putting the bulk of your science towards religious techs and the majority of your city production towards missionaries worth the financial payback?

 

[Merebimur]

I added a seperate Island for the Barbarians to run until about 1300 AD , crikey they put up a tremendous fight when I decided to take em on , took 15 encounters to grab their biggest city .

Tokugawa , that guys is always asking me to make him a vassal state the muppet lol .

 

[Pete2006]

I would just like to complain about Cathage's UU. It sucks! I think any UU should be able to get CR promotions or at least be stronger than what they replace.

However, the traits are fantastic. An obelisk and a religion = no happiness problems in the early game on higher difficulty levels.

 

[facistal]

MazX - Liz is still FIN/PHI actually - still the queen of the Cultural victory

 

[JrK]

I would just like to complain about Cathage's UU.

Do you use axemen?

 

[The Lardossen]

I would just like to complain about Cathage's UU. It sucks! I think any UU should be able to get CR promotions or at least be stronger than what they replace.

However, the traits are fantastic. An obelisk and a religion = no happiness problems in the early game on higher difficulty levels.

We had a whole discussion on this (use the search). In fact it is a strong unit, but just like for regular horsemen, the research path is just too long.

 

[Jensen]

I just had my first Warlords game on prince difficulty with Elizabeth. I ruled and made a domination victory just about the time a space race would start (so nearly at the end).

I could have made diplomatic victory (for I had many votes myself and had two vassals) or just finished with a space race victory but I never had a domination victory so went for it. And it was fun!

I think the financial trait combined with stock exchange are just great for single player and maybe a multiplayer game with non-aggressive oponents which just lasts a while (which might be rare out there, but I happen to have such friends here).

I'm now trying my very first monarch game with Julius since he indeed has tempting traits and a promising unique building.

Btw: Does anybody know if vassals will always vote for the maser? I was UN secretary and my vassals always voted for my recommendation but I never tried the diplomatic victory vote since I wanted to go for domination.

Jensen

 

[Pete2006]

Do you use axemen?

I prefer swords to take cities. Especially with agressive leaders. I stick an axe or two in my stack for protection.

Also, I just found out that the +1 happy for obelisks expires with Calendar. Not happy with that.

 

[Cookie Crumbs]

I think he was referring to how Carthage UU eats through axemen on the open field, making them good for barb-busting and beating up swords, axes and (with Shock) spearma stacks that AIs like to send from time to time. They suck at attacking cities, though.

I'm quite enjoying the Vikings right now on the Earth map, 3 movement galleys get swordsmen to mainland europe far quicker than on foot . Also, when you upgrade your beserkers to rifles, they keep the amphibious promotion, which I was quite pleased with . They would so rock on archipelago maps...Augustus Caesar's trait combo and UU together just scream early domination victory.

 

[civictor]

I played several games with Victoria to see if the imperial/financial combination was good, but I have gotten tired of her. I could build up a good sized empire quickly, but building settlers faster becomes worthless quickly, and getting generals wasn't as big of an advantage as I had hoped. (As an aside, I thought that using the 20 exp from my warlord on a single unit might meet the qualification to build West Point, but it didn't seem to work. It seemed like it should.)

I played as Ramses and he was doing really well.

I still favor industrious/financial, so I am going to try Huayna Capac. I agree with the comment that this is probably the most overpowered pairing of leader traits. If you get past the tipping point with an early lead in wonder/science production, you can bury your opposition by being the first to everything for the rest of the game. His unique building should be synergistic, too.

 

[DigitalBoy]

I prefer swords to take cities. Especially with agressive leaders. I stick an axe or two in my stack for protection.

Also, I just found out that the +1 happy for obelisks expires with Calendar. Not happy with that.

Charismatic would be uber-broken if they got the from monument permanently. Is it not enough that charismatic leaders can have cities a full two pop. points larger (usually meaning seven/six instead of five/four) than other civs early in the game?

BTW, numidian cavalry rock. -1 strength is more than made up for by +50% against melee and the free Flanking I promotion.

 

[Pete2006]

Charismatic would be uber-broken if they got the from monument permanently. Is it not enough that charismatic leaders can have cities a full two pop. points larger (usually meaning seven/six instead of five/four) than other civs early in the game?

BTW, numidian cavalry rock. -1 strength is more than made up for by +50% against melee and the free Flanking I promotion.

Yeah, +2 happy is too strong but I thought I would still get the obelisk happy but after Calendar I just wouldn't be able to build the anymore.

I strongly disagree about the Carthage UU. The tech is too expensive and the unit cannot take cities so it doesn't work for me.

I played several games with Victoria to see if the imperial/financial combination was good, but I have gotten tired of her. I could build up a good sized empire quickly, but building settlers faster becomes worthless quickly, and getting generals wasn't as big of an advantage as I had hoped. (As an aside, I thought that using the 20 exp from my warlord on a single unit might meet the qualification to build West Point, but it didn't seem to work. It seemed like it should.)

I played as Ramses and he was doing really well.

I still favor industrious/financial, so I am going to try Huayna Capac. I agree with the comment that this is probably the most overpowered pairing of leader traits. If you get past the tipping point with an early lead in wonder/science production, you can bury your opposition by being the first to everything for the rest of the game. His unique building should be synergistic, too.

I'm sad to hear about Vicky. I'm going to try her out tonight. The traits and her UB look good on paper.

Also, I think they realy screwed HC. He used to be my favorite. Agg/Fin with great starting techs. I hate the Ind trait. He starts with Myst so he can build obelisks or snag a religion. Why does be need a granary with culture?

 

[JrK]

I stick an axe or two in my stack for protection.

Numidian Cavalry is BETTER at that. The only thing that can threaten them is pike or spearmen, something your swordsmen can take care of.

 

[Pete2006]

Numidian Cavalry is BETTER at that. The only thing that can threaten them is pike or spearmen, something your swordsmen can take care of.

You are overlooking the fact that HR is a very expensive tech and I would much rather research Monarchy or Currency/CoL than get a slightly better axeman. They cost more to build than axes as well and can't take cities.

 

[PMabey]

death to all numidian cavalry

 

[a4phantom]

When I spoke of religious dominance, I was referring to the ability to spread one religion to a large enough majority of the world's nations for a successful diplomatic victory, in which case, I don't see how generating multiple great prophets makes any difference (one would be sufficient).

However, your comment suggests trying to found as many religions as possible. Is this an effective strategy? I've never actually tried it, but now that I think about it, controlling multiple holy cities early in the game could potentially result in huge financial gain. Is the cost of putting the bulk of your science towards religious techs and the majority of your city production towards missionaries worth the financial payback?

Yes the shrine income from holy city hoarding can be spectacular, but doign so can actually be a diplomatic problem, because it means there are fewer religions to divide among your rivals, leading to large alliances. If I'm Hindu, I don't want more than one or two civs to be the same of any other religion right? They're going to share tech and resources and if I attack one the others will be mad. But if the Incas found Buddism, and the Spanish found Judaism, and someone else Christianity and someone else Taosim, I know they won't get along because AIs (seemingly) always choose a religion they have a holy city for if they have one. So from the divide and conquer perspective founding most of the religions is bad.

 

[The Lardossen]

I prefer swords to take cities. Especially with agressive leaders. I stick an axe or two in my stack for protection.

Also, I just found out that the +1 happy for obelisks expires with Calendar. Not happy with that.

If you get Calendar, you'll always have at least one resource that you can use to give that back.

The Stonehenge thing is to keep your cities happy while you don't have Calendar.

 

[uberfish]

If you want to convert people to your religion, it's easier if they didn't found their own. Also if less religions are spread to AI cities overall because there are some minor ones confined to your own civ, the incentive for them to switch to free religion later in the game is smaller.