Unrestrained Leaders

[Frostyboy]

I have analyzed which leaders should go best with each civ. The most awsome combinations must be playing Rome with Boudica (Cha-Agg Unstoppable Praetorians) and an Organized leader with Sumeria (Courthouses at Priesthood for 45 hammers). Iti s also interesting how Sumerias best leader is the Bablyonian and vice versa. Notice that no Spiritual leaders are chosen as it doesn't apply to neither units nor buidlings (no unique temples).

Here is the rest of the list:

America 1. Wang Kong
Arabs 1. Pericles, Any Creative
Aztecs 1. Caesar 2. Hammurabi
China 1. Louis, 2. Qin Shi Huang, 3. Gilgamesh
Carthage 1. Pacal, Any Expansive
Celts 1. Togukawa, 2. Churchill
Egypt 1. Lincoln
England 1. Wang Kon, 2. Ragnar, 3. Tokugawa
France 1. Sitting Bull, 2. Alexander, 3. Tokugawa
Germany 1. Caesar, 2. Frederick
Greece 1. Pericles, 2. Kublai Khan
Inca 1. Shaka
India Any Combat
Japan 1. Stalin
Korea 1. Elizabeth, Any Philosophical
Mali 1. Huyna Capac
Mongolia 1. Cyrus
Ottoman 1. Tokugawa
Persia 1. Hannibal
Rome 1. Boudica, 2. Genghis Khan, 3. Alexander
Russia 1. Suleiman
Spain Any Protective
Viking 1. Hammurabi, 2. Caesar
Zulu 1. Genghis Khan
Babylon 1. Gilgamesh
Dutch 1. Darius, Any Financial (Archipelago)
Ethiopian 1. DeGaulle, 2. Louis
HRE 1. Hammurabi, 2. Caesar
Khmer None Particular
Mayan 1. Kublai Khan
Nat Am. 1. Churchill
Portugal 1.Darius, 2.Pacal, 3. Willhem (Archipelago)
Sumeria 1. Zara Yaqob , 2. Mehmed, 3. Caesar, 4. Hammurabi

 

[Elandal]

Could you also post your analysis method, not simply results? What makes these combinations better than other ones?

Also, I'm assuming you've tried to find direct synergies, essentially enhance units and UB's with traits (or the other way). This certainly will make some combinations excellent, but it'll make the combinations narrower. For example, where Hammurabi is Aggressive and thus wants to play with melee units, the UU of Babylonia is archer replacement which complements Hammurabi instead of enhancing him.

 

[Elandal]

Decided to pick one specific case where I'm of clearly different opinion: Atzecs.

Aztecs 1. Caesar 2. Hammurabi

I consider Monty actually perfect leader for Atzecs due to his trait combination.
Sacrificial Altar makes whipping way more powerful choice than it would normally be, and thus requires spiritual leader so that short Slavery periods (5 turns) can be used during parts of game where you normally would go for eg. Caste System.
Jaguar Warrior I feel is nice unit even if not necessarily one of the top choices. With Aggressive leader it becomes a good unit, and also when you combine the whipping potential Altar gives with Aggressive trait you get armies up faster and easier.

I was against playing Monty for a long time. I've finally given some tries for Monty, and consider Monty of Atzecs as one of the interesting leader choices currently.

 

[Lord_Zath]

The dutch work really well with DeGaulle, too. I'm currently experimenting with Roosevelt of the Dutch. Ind + org + dikes = builder's delight

 

[Frostyboy]

Could you also post your analysis method, not simply results? What makes these combinations better than other ones?

I did it on purpose to make it more interesting Sure all of the chices are well analyzed. If a UB can get half prize through a trait, then that is half of the choice; the other traits is based on special bonuses that comes with the UB or the UU. For instance Caesar seem like a good choce for the Germans as you get 1/2 price on Assembly Plant from being Organized, and you should also have twice the amount of Military instructors when your Panzer sets in - boosting your UU even more to meake som impact.
As mentioned playing Rome with Boudica kicks ass as she gives the Praetorians both Combat I and makes them level up faster in the field.

When it comes to the Aztec - the Jaguar is clearly the worst UU in the game.
I always said so. You have to research Iron working to get there. Withing this time you should had time to get a copper mine to make axeman already (which are better!). If you don't get Iron or copper at all, you are just either very unlucky or have playing wrong (not expanding enough).

I see your 5 turn slavery style comes good with the Sac altar - I didn't see that one, Yes, Monty might still be the right leader for them, if Jaguars were usable. My suggestion is to keep the cost at 40 and their strength at 5 as well as resource independent, But - give them +50 attack and defence in jungle as well as woodman I upgrade - then it will matter - compare it to the Gallic Swordman and you'll see it is pretty reasonable.

Playing sumerians with an organized is way fun - you can expand the whole way without getting in money trouble But it is pretty unbalanced though.

 

[Scaramanga]

The dutch work really well with DeGaulle, too. I'm currently experimenting with Roosevelt of the Dutch. Ind + org + dikes = builder's delight

Funny, since Roosevelt is from Dutch heritage.

 

[AlessioCerci]

never mind

 

[Frostyboy]

I can't see how DeGaulle makes the Dutch better to play. OK he's industrious and you'll probably have forges in every city; still Dikes comes pretty late. And charismatic - in what way does that the Dutch better.

What you need for the Dutch is a Archipelago map. A financial leader is great on sea maps as you don't have to even work for the extra commerce. Organized helps for early Lighthouses, and cheap factories+hammers from dikes is good. Darius is after my opinion the best choice.

 

[Dennis_Moore]

Funny, since Roosevelt is from Dutch heritage.

Now that you mention it, the name sounds kind of Dutch.

 

[Lord_Zath]

I can't see how DeGaulle makes the Dutch better to play. OK he's industrious and you'll probably have forges in every city; still Dikes comes pretty late. And charismatic - in what way does that the Dutch better.

What you need for the Dutch is a Archipelago map. A financial leader is great on sea maps as you don't have to even work for the extra commerce. Organized helps for early Lighthouses, and cheap factories+hammers from dikes is good. Darius is after my opinion the best choice.

Well, by the time you get dikes is about the time you also get privateers. Charismatic = faster promotions for privateers.

Also, the extra happiness in each city (2 each if you do stonehenge) allows for early large cities. 2 extra citizens = more hammers or specialists.

Personally, Charismatic is the most flexible trait in the game. If someone DoW's on me, I can easily shift over to wartime production and have those cheaper promotions in a hurry.

 

[Frostyboy]

Well, still I don't get how DeGaulle is a good Dutch leader. He might have good traits, but the Dutch don't even have an offensive UU to use the Charismatic trait on. Privateers are no match for stronger naval power like Frigates and Ship of the Lines.

I would say Mali is more suitable for DeGaulle as you get 50% cheaper Mints (and then 10% more wealth) and Charismatic on the Skirmishes are ideal for early Pillaging strategy against your neighbour (which you don't want to expand). I held entire Civs in check with a few archer before (with Sitting Bull it's fun). I always choose Charismatic if playing warlike, since it is the most fun trait to play with.

 

[18lama]

As mentioned in the first post Fredrick of Germany is a good combo. I mostly always play that. Being organized and having access to coal means you can build super-fast assembly plants. It takes no more than 15 turns to build them and this is at Marathon speed.

With an industrialized economy, I can quickly create a big stack of infantry and arty while researching Radio, Refrigeration, etc.

Assembly plant also give you ability to add more engineers. so with the Philosophical leader you are generating lots of Great Engineer points resulting in lots of GEs in the modern era. Which could come in very handy if you are going for Cristo redentor, Eiffel tower, 3G dam etc.

 

[Sjaramei]

I disagree with a lot in your list

Genghis of the Romans? (I consider Genghis to be one of the worst leaders in the game )
Hannibal of Persia? Reasons? (any leader with Charismatic should do well with them)

Where is Napoleon? Napoleon of Rome is far better than Boudica of Rome. An army which never loses who can expand forever? And Hammurabi should be there on the list too (thank you cheap courthouses) Boudica of Rome is overkill, sure it creates the best ancient army ever, but do you really need it that much instead of some teching/maintenance boost?
Alexander of Rome i agree with, though Lincoln could be better. I think you emphasize UB and traits too much.

You should make two lists, one for war one for peace. Rome, Sumeria, Zululand and Holy Roman Empire all have insane synergies with warmongering leaders. (any of the good ones could fit there)
And i think you have something wrong regarding traits, Charismatic is way way better than Aggressive and should be considered superior when comparing leaders for an UU.

 

[Tusk]

The dutch work really well with DeGaulle, too. I'm currently experimenting with Roosevelt of the Dutch. Ind + org + dikes = builder's delight

I have played a couple of games as the Dutch with Huayna Capac (Ind/Fin), and I think it is an awesome combo (haven't tried that many others so can't say it's the best) as long as you found cities on the coast and have plenty of water/river tiles, eg. Archipelago maps. The Financial trait gives 1 extra commerce in all water tiles, plus the dike later gives +1 production too. Build a lighthouse in each city and water tiles now give 2F 1P 3C each - pretty good. It's like having Colossus and Moari Statues in every city, even beats towns if not using universal suffrage and the other civic (?) that gives an extra 2 gold to towns.

The Industrial trait suits my playing style since I often go for Wonder domination - once you have dikes with this combo you should be pumping out wonders in quick succession and raking in the $'s as well.

 

[Gibsie]

Just don't ever try Genghis Khan leading Jana. Srsly.

 

[obliterate]

What about Darius of the HRE? half price rathauses, and org + fin.

 

[Frostyboy]

I disagree with a lot in your list

Genghis of the Romans? (I consider Genghis to be one of the worst leaders in the game )
Hannibal of Persia? Reasons? (any leader with Charismatic should do well with them)

Where is Napoleon? Napoleon of Rome is far better than Boudica of Rome. An army which never loses who can expand forever? And Hammurabi should be there on the list too (thank you cheap courthouses) Boudica of Rome is overkill, sure it creates the best ancient army ever, but do you really need it that much instead of some teching/maintenance boost?
Alexander of Rome i agree with, though Lincoln could be better. I think you emphasize UB and traits too much.

You should make two lists, one for war one for peace. Rome, Sumeria, Zululand and Holy Roman Empire all have insane synergies with warmongering leaders. (any of the good ones could fit there)
And i think you have something wrong regarding traits, Charismatic is way way better than Aggressive and should be considered superior when comparing leaders for an UU.

The Romans: I think ALL leaders with 2 combat traits are suitable for the Romans with their Praetorians. Especially Boudica, but any Combat leader will do. You'll get a lot of Great Generals with Djenghis this way.

Hannibal with Persia. A bit far fetched perhaps, but the though was: Attack a lot with Immortals in the start. Charismatic is a good trait here as you want the survivors to level up. Financial was meant for the Apothecary as you want to build them in most cities to the health bonus. Fin gives more money --> more wealth with Apothecary.

Why is Napoleon better with Rome? In what way is Organized better than a second war trait? Forum is a totally crappy UB, and shouldn't almost count for; but this is fair as the Praetorians are the best UU in the game.

I have though mostly for war and peace.

When it comes to Charismatic vs Agressive, I agree with you, BUT - with a early Melee unit it is important to be able to get straigth to the +25% bonuses. Starting with combat 1 and getting ine upgrade from barracks means you gan get straight to Shock or COver for a total of +35% for Melee or Archey units respectively.
For a civ like the Mayans, you should build about 3 Holkan Very early befor the opponent gets archers, and when also saving 25 hammers from barracks through the aggressive trait it may be fast enough to wipe out your closest neighbours capital before he can expand.

What about Darius of the HRE? half price rathauses, and org + fin.

The HRE is Overpowered. Too good UB and too Good UU. The Rathaus is totally overpowered when it comes to Corporations. It becomes profitable in all cities. The Landsknecht is also too good - compare it with the Berserker for instance.

 

[Sjaramei]

Why is Napoleon better with Rome? In what way is Organized better than a second war trait? Forum is a totally crappy UB, and shouldn't almost count for; but this is fair as the Praetorians are the best UU in the game.
instance.

I hate warring early without being able to whip corthouses at pop 4. You can keep going much longer with Organized than any other trait without your economy going boom. My record score is with this combo. You just keep going while with any other trait you have to rebuild in longer periods in between wars. (Financial techs faster, but is slower in the start than Organized thats why it is so good with Praets, Hannibal is better in modern times when your cities have grown a bit)

When it comes to Charismatic vs Agressive, I agree with you, BUT - with a early Melee unit it is important to be able to get straigth to the +25% bonuses. Starting with combat 1 and getting ine upgrade from barracks means you gan get straight to Shock or COver for a total of +35% for Melee or Archey units respectively.

One combat with Charismatic and you got this upgrade too so it's not that bad, and you get quicker promotions on other units too (siege,horses). This is the advantage of Aggressive and it's of course good with the early promotions, but later Charismatic comes to power and just outshines Aggressive totally (settled GG's)

For a civ like the Mayans, you should build about 3 Holkan Very early befor the opponent gets archers, and when also saving 25 hammers from barracks through the aggressive trait it may be fast enough to wipe out your closest neighbours capital before he can expand.

If the AI doesn't start with archers you can just move your warrior inside his undefended capital if you want it gone. (I play emperor so such a quick rush is usually suicide or a waste of time for me )

The HRE is Overpowered. Too good UB and too Good UU. The Rathaus is totally overpowered when it comes to Corporations. It becomes profitable in all cities. The Landsknecht is also too good - compare it with the Berserker for instance.

HRE and unrestricted leaders can be considered imbalanced yes, no argument there And the Berserker is awesome, it gets bonus vs cities and a permanent amphibious promotion. (naval warfare is more important in BTS so the amphibious promotion really helps)

 

[TheLastOne36]

Nat Am. 1. Churchill

I disagree. I play Nat Am with Tokugawa in multiplayer everytime. Alot better then churchill. The thing with churchill is, You have to depand solely on archers. With tokugawa, You have Combat I Melee units. i've played many games. And most of them with tokugawa of nat america, I lost. You know why? I depanded to much on archers. (i had a stack of attacking archers ) But ever since i started using dog solders as well as archers and kept a balance, i've never lost a game. (after doing that i think i won around 12 games,)

 

[L4zXX0r]

I think Boudica of Rome is over rated, but still clearly the most obvious combo.

Currently I'm using Hannibal of the Mongols, which is working really nicely.