Thoughts on the Strongest Leader in Warlords

[Imsen]

Lots of interesting posts here.. I think those who said that Elizabeth is underrated because she is a female leader have a very good point. I just did a close multiplayer game with Isabella versus Saladin and Ragnar. I maybe was lucky to beat Saladin to all the religions but one (hindu), which made the spiritual trait really shine, since I built loads of temples. The temples were needed to keep happiness up in my HUGE cities which were also maintained by the +3 health from the expansive trait. Harbors and granaries popped in quickly, and the UU was dangerous enough to keep my enemies at bay until the better gunpowder units were researched. (At least I didnt see any camels within my borders )

What really makes Isabella an interesting choice is the UB, the citadel. This building gives you one additional trade route, and gives your siege units more XP. Spanish artillery from trebuchet and onwards are therefore the most dangerous siege units in the game, starting at 9 xp (2 from barracks, 2 from citadel, 4 from serfdom and vassalage). The spiritual trait is good if you know how to take advantage of it. Run whatever civics you like, when it is time to build an army, switch to police state, serfdom and theocracy and you can take on anyone.. as I said, the ability to make highly experienced siege units is really good later on in the game, and do very well in modern warfare. Those who think Isabella is some sort of cultural babysitter are serously mistaken.

 

[DsevenO]

After playing about a dozen warmongering games, I'd easily go with Cyrus. Phenomenal UU, rapid promotions, great generals coming out the yin-yang (even more so with the great wall), this guy absolutely kills - pun intended.

 

[The Lardossen]

I look at the traits and the UU, and nothing else. It could be a excentric transgender handicapped paintress from Belgium that would even be called gay by Boy George, I don't care. I'm not the the one that has to look at the leaderface all game long

 

[50_dollar_bag]

I agree about Cyrus very good when paired with the GW. The rapid promotions paired with Warlords or Military advisors is awesome.

 

[a4phantom]

I agree about Cyrus very good when paired with the GW. The rapid promotions paired with Warlords or Military advisors is awesome.

The funny thing is that Immortals are prefect barbarian hunters and get lots of experience doing that, which will be harder with the GW. And I think Larossen is right, I can't see anyone turning down fun UUs and traits because they didn't want to play a female leader. Don't you get addressed by the name you put in anyway?

 

[mattspoker]

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

Ive found out early on if Im playing dumb Caesar(tech slider to zero early) then to avoid Hannibal at all costs. Especially ones with multiple city raider promos. If I dont have hunting which happens a lot on dumb caesar playsI try to make friends. Its a good AI unit, the tech tree to HR is long, but the AI is going to get their faster than you at higher levels.

 

[mattspoker]

I look at the traits and the UU, and nothing else. It could be a excentric transgender handicapped paintress from Belgium that would even be called gay by Boy George, I don't care. I'm not the the one that has to look at the leaderface all game long

Lol. I just dislike that of the THREE ENglish leders, they pick two of the individual worst ones (Victoria and ELizabeth) just to gender balance the game. Come on where is ALfred, Henry V, henryVIII, edward, william of orange, cromwell. Lots of better choices but if they wanted a woman, they wanted a woman.

 

[JrK]

I'll just point out that it isn't William of Orange, it's Willem van Oranje. And he's Dutch, not English.

 

[Imsen]

William Orange was also king of England

 

[a4phantom]

Lol. I just dislike that of the THREE ENglish leders, they pick two of the individual worst ones (Victoria and ELizabeth) just to gender balance the game. Come on where is ALfred, Henry V, henryVIII, edward, william of orange, cromwell. Lots of better choices but if they wanted a woman, they wanted a woman.

What have you got against Elizabeth? And Victoria might not have been spectacular herself, but she did reign over and was the symbol of the height of the British Empire.

 

[DrMayhem]

I have played a game on prince difficulty pangeia map as zulu. let me tell you that the impi are amazing. they can't reliably take a city on their own, but they can reliably control the opponent's resources. swordsman are much better when they do not face axemen.

after that game, I cranked up to monarch and started with Rammeses thanks to what somebody was previously saying. I did a civil service slingshot and as a result I am far ahead of the pack. built most of the wonders. the war chariots are great against barbs, I took 3 barbarian cities. my whole continent is confusionist, and at ~1500 ad my confucionist shrine is making 33 gold per turn.

after I win this game I will have to try him on emperor difficulty.

I have never been a big fan of spiritual or industrious, but I am coming around. I really like financial, creative and organized. based on what I have been reading I might have to try kublai kahn and brennus.

I love civ4 but there are possibly too many options, at least my wife probably thinks so based on how much I play.

 

[JrK]

William Orange was also king of England

ok sorry

 

[Balactus]

I dont know, I like Catherine because of the imperialistic and Cultural bonuses: fast borders and cities. too bad she isnt financial anymore

 

[civ_king]

you got nothing on hannibal. you may think that numidian cavalry are bad but they rock and open the slauter house with 30% retreat think of the pratorian they got mowed down and the samurai AND the gallic swordsman who had gurrila 3 and i STILL mowed the down on hills.

sorry bout the poor english

 

[a4phantom]

you got nothing on hannibal. you may think that numidian cavalry are bad but they rock and open the slauter house with 30% retreat think of the pratorian they got mowed down and the samurai AND the gallic swordsman who had gurrila 3 and i STILL mowed the down on hills.

I don't have warlords but shouldn't praets beat numidians most of the time, 8 vs. 5+50%=7.5, praets can have defensive bonuses and numidians can't? A Gallic warrior (6) defending a hill +25% with guerilla 2 (about +50% right?) should toast a numidian. Correct me if I'm wrong, as I said I don't have the expansion and am not currently even playing Civ

sorry bout the poor english

No problem, we're all citizens of the world here.

 

[Duncan_Idaho]

Ok, I've started playing the warlords. Here's the answer:

Best leader: Huaina Capac.

Industrious + Financial = unstoppable Combined with agriculture and mysticism as starting techs and with the terrace (a granary, that produces culture) + the Incan UU (quechua - a warrior with bonus against archers), playing the Incan is total ownage. I play monarch though, I guess you shouldn't build wonders on the higher difficulties.
Just be careful, use the quechua defensively - they allow a really good protection of your early settlers from barbarians. A single axeman can be a nightmare if you try to attack with them though.
On monarch you can also use them to rush a nearby enemy - while they still have nothing else but archers in their cities.
However, the fun with the Incas is getting early wonders and a couple of religions (use the prophets) and then rocking with swords, chariots and perhaps catapults if you wait that long
The financial trait works fantastic when it comes to maintaining a growing empire.
Afterwards, you have a huge empire with the benefit of the early wonders, you are ahead in technology AFTER having conquered at least one enemy and..noone can match your power!


Best warmonger: Cyrus.

The Persian Immortals are the best UU I've seen so far - they get a bonus against archers, a bonus against axemen - and they come early enough that the enemy has nothing else built in their cities. Some spears can be a problem but your unit is cheap enough to mass it.
Unless the opponent has mass spears in their cities, they are toast and your only problem will be the maintenance cost of the conquered cities. The 'Charismatic' feature works really good to maintain your own cities huge and working
What could suck is no horses nearby but it doesn't happen often. Another thing that could prevent you from eating 2-3 enemies early is you being surrounded by jungles (That's worse than no horses nearby but with like 2 extra workers building roads you should be able to get around that too)

 

[a4phantom]

The Incas were better warmongers before Warlords because Capac had Aggressive instead of Industrial. The extra Combat1 meant that they beat most warriors as well as archers, and it took fewer of them to take down archers in cities on hills. They still lost to spears and axes but those come later and require copper.

I'm really looking forward to playing Warlord Persians with the improved traits and bonus against axes, I loved Immortals.

 

[D'Artagnan59]

Inca is in top 5 civs.

 

[Qwack]

After playing about a dozen warmongering games, I'd easily go with Cyrus. Phenomenal UU, rapid promotions, great generals coming out the yin-yang (even more so with the great wall), this guy absolutely kills - pun intended.

I agree.

Ill stick with my original post. Ive completed 4 warlords games so far, and the one I played with cyrus was not even close. I played it at monarch level, eliminated 2 opponents by 1000 AD (Immortals and axeman only), and had 14 cities at this point. I spawned 3 generals during these wars (On epic speed which takes longer). Used one for +2 xp for all units, the other 2 on warlords. After this, it was a absolute cruise control to victory. I could have easily won by domination by 1500 AD but decided to go diplomatic instead because it would take less hours to complete than warring. With the help of cyrus's charismatic trait and UB(+2 health from grocer), I had 6 cities size 22+, along with the others hovering around 15, Won diplomatic in early 1800's with 280 out of 360 necesarry votes belonging to me. Was producing 1400 beakers at this point and was first in every category. The date was extended because I ended up not switching to universal suffrage to speed up the UN, which took 40 turns to build.

Cyrus's traits and UU lead to a early war advantage, and using this gained land in the early game leads to a monster late game by creating big cities with the UB. Not to mention, I played this game rather quickly (6 hour 40 minutes which is short by my standards) so there was alot of things not being optimal. Also conducted a trade mission worth 4650 gold which is a new record for me

I havent tried HC or rameses yet but since alot of people are saying they are strong, ill be trying them for my next 2 games.

 

[The Lardossen]

I've just finished a domination win on Emperor with Ceasar. The opponents never had the chance to even get to gunpowder. I could trade CoL to Shaka until the end.

Playing Ceasar is like playing one or two difficulty levels down, once you're hooked on to Iron and have crushed your first opponent.

Research BW, build worker, research pottery and only the most essential worker techs, then Iron Working, start researching to CoL, attack the weakest nearby AI, take or burn all cities, repeat for strongest neighbour.

All cities have granaries first, then CH, then Forge, then barracks. You'll have to skip CH and forge in the beginning, naturally. After that go for currency and construction, if you have tough opponents with walled cities, prioritize construction. Having elephants to kill any mounted units is great too.

Especially before you have CH set up everywhere, never stop warring. Actually, stopping the stampede will decrease your science with at least 50% in the later game, and will give your opponents the chance to get to research for the dreaded macemen, which will seriously slow your advance.