wanting to clarify some preconceptions i've had

[jokulmorder]

hey guys, so i browsed this forum very infrequently in the past despite having played a lot of civ, but for the most part i had kind of taught myself this game (there was a period where i was convinced a shrine economy after a pyramids beeline was the ultimate strat ) right now i can play at about an emperor level, sometimes i win, sometimes i lose.

after browsing i've seen some things that seem to differ from what i had thought i knew. i was hoping i could get some of this cleared up i guess, to see what your opinions are on these leaders/traits/etc.

Right now, i'd probably rank the traits as (no order within tiers unless specified):

Spoiler :

Objectively the Best:
Financial
Philosophical

Generally Strong:
Organized
Charismatic
Spiritual

Generally Alright:
Creative (although faster libs has always made me reassess this trait)
Industrious
Expansive

More Situational:
Imperialistic
Aggressive (the weaker of the two)

Protective Tier:
Protective (but i like it cause drill line is fun)

I've also seen some things that i didn't understand, like some boudica hate. i know her UB and starting techs are trash and her UU is just "ok", but she's got great traits for warmongering. I figure i'd share who i think the weaker leaders are, and possibly why. maybe i'll see why boudica got so much hate with some responses.

Spoiler :

Tokugawa: i think he's the weakest leader, but his rifles are godly; such a strong draft i think he's as good as many charismatics at drafting

Saladin: very meh UU, if priests were better his UB would have some beast potential, but they're not and he already gets faster temples if you need priests anyways. god awful starting techs.

Charlemagne: Meh traits and the same crappy techs as salad. he's got a better UU and much better UB though.

Germans/Americans: I don't think they're that bad cause they have pretty unique styled traits (washington's super cities and fred's pacifism)

other than that i feel like most civs are even until you get to the powerhouses like huayna, liz, and indians

i recently stopped favoring praets as a top 5 UU mostly because i never found myself doing sword rushes. is this wrong? i know most newbs look at the praet and go like "ZOMG SO OP BEST UU" but i don't wanna be the complete opposite. my top 5 UUs (no order):

Spoiler :

War Chariot: completely busted imo

Fast Worker: working immediately after entering a forest/jungle/hill so good)

Keshik

Chukonu: Machinery rush is ridic as chinese.

Quechua: i don't really play as incas because i don't like huayna, but these things look good on paper and i've done warrior rushes with other civs so i just sort of assumed these things are busted

Bot 5 UU:
Seal: Only cause they come so late, i've actually used them only once but their bonuses seem fairly strong.

Panzer: Looks worse than seal. i've never really used them though and don't really war too often at industrialism so i never really see how many tanks AIs make.

Gallic Warrior: Guerilla promo just seem so eh. a free defensive promo for a unit i want to use to take out cities? seems so counter-intuitive, especially since it's so terrain specific. what if there are no hills when my gallics are at risk? only good thing is that you only need copper at least.

Jaguar: Maybe i dislike the swordsmen replacements too much, but jags are even worse than gallics imo cause gallics have almost the same resource benefit. how often do you get neither metal, decide to attack at IW, and you either want these over HAs or you can't get HAs? for me, not that often :/

Ballista Elephant: hard to come by resource and the bonus looks super minor (although it does seem to have potential). i never seem to get suryavarman though, so maybe i just haven't experienced the power of dodging AI spears yet.

HM: Holkan. i've never made these things when i wouldn't have made a normal spear. only purpose seems to be making you safer against mongols tho.

similarly, UBs:

Spoiler :

Top 5:
Hamaam: +2 happy at math. it's like you're getting calendar 12 turns early. and calendar is like a second HR

Ikhanda

Dike: gives coastal cities a source of hammers without taking a million years to build or give prophet points like moai.

Terrace: who needs mysticism when you can get pottery?

Rathaus: amazing for growing empires

Bot 5:
Stele: I only use monuments for the border pop but zara is already creative. i guess this could be okay for culture victories if you wait a thousand years.

Obelisk: Even worse than stele. it's still too bad priests weren't a better specialist. too bad everything but scientists weren't better specialists

Pavilion: I've never won by culture. that's all this thing is good for though so naturally i see it as crap.

Research Institute: Completely worthless

Madrassa: Priests are bad. Mall is at least useful when you get it.

do i fall in line with consensus? at least at emperor play? what about imm and deity?

also, i've always wondered if sacrificial altar affected draft unhappiness. i'm not sure if it counts as "sacrificing population" :/

 

[lymond]

I'll do some spot commenting, but much of your assessments, which I assume you gathered from the various other threads that can be found here, are generally on track. (Reading between the line though, I still see inexperience come through here and there but you are on the right path in many respects)

I highly recommend trying culture games. They can be quite fun and offer a good balance on the different aspects of the game.

Traits:

FIN/PHIL definitely top tier...not many would argue that.

Expansive is my personal favorite trait. Does not mean it is Top tier, as you want it paired with another good trait, but still quite strong on it's own merit. A bonus to the most important unit in the game is valuable.

Creative is a very very strong trait. Fast Libs and free border pops cannot by underestimated. Look at leaders like Hatty and Willie and you have some strong ones there.

Overall on track here.

Leaders:

Toke/Charlie/Sal are indeed not favored leaders. Toke is generally considered the worst. I'm of the mind you can win with any leader though and indeed Toke Rifles are immense.

Boudi is alright. The starting techs and UB really hurt her, although I place little emphasis on UBs and UUs really for that matter. More on GWs later. Although AGG is bad, combined with Char makes it a somewhat decent combo and can setup some decent early opportunities and definitely very good late war opportunities. The issue with her is setting it up.

Throw out UU/UBs and Germs/Americans all have very solid trait combos and reasonable starting techs. Very winnable leaders/civs in any situation.

UUs:

IMO UUs are generally overrated in most situations. There's really only a few that give you a real edge. A few early ones that can make a difference even on higher levels and one that is placed at a very optimal time for war later.

War Chariots and Fast Workers are spot on. IMO Fast Worker is the best UU since it can be used in every situation. WCs obviously require reasonably close horses to get the most of, but that is not uncommon. They are wicked strong though for a very long time.

Quechas are special since they are considered basically OP. (Incans are banned from HOF Guantlets and Challenges) I don't like using them myself

Conquistadors are definitely top tier. Cur warfare is highly favored among experienced players on higher levels. It's a great time to push a strategy for quick MT and roll the map. So making a good unit even better by giving it a bonus to its natural counter AND allowing it defensive bonus that mounted normally does not get (IMM the exception) is very very strong. Great UU.

Gallic Warrior: Gets a lot of hate on the forum, but I think it is a very good UU. In fact, I like them better than Praets. The key is understanding how to use the Guerrilla line. GII gives faster movement over hills which can speed troop movement and even open some similar tactics as mounted in the right situations. The real kicker is GIII. 50% withdrawal is quite awesome. With the Char leaders you can get it easily, plus Boudi adds CI to the equation. And Galls can use copper or iron. Try them out sometime and really use the G line. I love having CIGIIICR# guys running around the map.

As for Jags, Dogs and Holkans, you're generally not going to rush the map with them, but most experience players value you them for early defense, especially barbs. Very valuable on high levels. Jags offer some interesting tricks with the Woody line. By no means top tier units, but they have there units and come at an important time in the game.

UBs:

Again, as a whole, UBs generally hold little value to me in the game and are not game breaking usually. I like tangible benefits that will be realized at a reasonable point in the game. Extra happiness is always a good thing like you get with Hamman, Ball Court and Garden or the extra reduced maintenance from Ikhanda and Rat. (Ikhanda also has nice synergy with Shaka).

IMO Sacrificial Altar is the best UB. Provides a substantial benefit to one of the key aspects of the game....whipping

Dikes are strong but often irrelevant in my games.

 

[BornInCantaloup]

Generally Alright:
Creative (although faster libs has always made me reassess this trait)
Industrious
Expansive

[...]

other than that i feel like most civs are even until you get to the powerhouses like huayna, liz, and indians

Agreed on most parts.
Those "generally alright" traits are pretty good ; maybe they're not Phi/Fin, but there's nothing wrong about them. I recall having been addicted to every one of them.

Which leads me to Elizabeth, the one leader I've always wanted to love, even though I never could get a great game with her.
Early production is a very limiting factor with her as the only production bonus goes to Universities. Expansion can be troublesome.
To me, she's great on paper but definitely tricky to play, especially with a lack of forests to chop. Once she's set up, though, I can see the superpower in Elizabeth (OCC queen ?).

 

[The Wimp]

I kinda like Cossacks as UU, pretty much invincible to mounted units

 

[Um the Muse]

Many of these things are a matter of opinion and playstyles. Especially the importance of traits.

For example, even though Toku is objectively very weak economically, some of my best games used him as my avatar--and I'm not even very war-like. It's just a matter of mind-set, I suppose.

Another example: I've never really learned to leverage the PHI trait. I always underrate specialists, because it takes so long to get a great person and I can never seem to time them quite right.

There are a fair number of people (including myself) who hold that FIN is overrated. It's good, sure, but its value gets blown out of proportion because its effects are highly visible and easy to use. On higher difficulties, ORG will save you more gold than FIN will give you in commerce just from the passive ability. Once you factor in production bonuses, ORG is usually significantly better.

 

[Quibblesome]

I think industrious is pretty strong and deserves a bit of a bump. Your wonder building will be half ensuring a lot of production turn saved in those cities. Half price forges are excellent too.

I'd like to defend the Jaguar. I think its a good unit only because it doesn't require any metal. So you spend the early game merely prioritising food when expanding and harassing a nearby enemy to keep them off their metals. Then by the time IW finishes you pretty much have a free quick kill from the whip in all your lovely food cities. That or Oracle => CoL for super happy whiptimes. I think Monty is a pretty good leader myself, not sure why he's so disliked.

I also agree that Expansive is a very nice trait. Speeding up the rate of growth in all your cites should not be underestimated. I constantly double take at the speed of my growth when playing expansive leaders. Grabbing the Hanging Gardens on top of having the expansive trait is good fun.

I want to love the obelisk myself but do have difficulty in getting them to work. It's worth noting though that if you snag Angkor Wat then a priest becomes almost as good as an engineer.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Traits are overrated. I would give away all traits to get a good starting position and never regret it in normal games.

 

[Keilah]

Traits are overrated. I would give away all traits to get a good starting position and never regret it in normal games.

+1



message too short lol

 

[MesSer]

The only traits I really enjoy when I have and that changes my play style is spiritual and creative.

Spiritual for insta-shifts into CS for a couple of turns for GP-productio and creative to never have to think about whether to settle with food or special resources in first or second ring.

 

[Iranon]

Traits: Economy good, military bad.

Tier 1: ORG > IND = FIN > PHI.

Spoiler :

ORG stands out because it saves hammers on basics and is in full effect if you're thrashing your economy for growth/production. If you never drive it hard and like cottages, ORG is no better than FIN which deserves most of its popularity.
IND requires good judgment calls on which wonders to attempt and which to sink hammers in for failure cash. PHI is less powerful than most people think, but flexibility and enabling several risky-but-awesome opening keeps it in the top tier.

Tier 2: SPI = EXP > IMP = CHA.

Spoiler :

Spiritual allows some fine tuning of one's empire, but its strongest spect is diplomacy and AI manipulation, useful on high levels. Expansive is a nice head start for new cities and in my opinion the strongest "time saver". IMP and CHA leave me cold, but they balance some military application with a non-neglegible peacetime bonus.

Tier 3: CRE > PRO > AGG

Spoiler :

Creative makes otherwise suboptimal city placement viable, but not reliably better than one that doesn't require early culture; ongoing gains are unimpressive. Protective at least facilitates Middle Finger Diplomacy (let the AI wear itself out) while AGG requires a more proactive role that's usually risky in high-level games.

Top Unique Units: Quechua = Skirmisher > War Chariot = Praetorian > Oromo?

Spoiler :

Nothing beats the guaranteed capability of taking out annoying neighbours even if you lack resources. Quechuas remain relevant through upgrade tricks, Skirmishers through cost-effectiveness.
War Chariots are 2-move rush-capable units that can deal with their direct counters (no worse than Sword vs. Axe once you consider hammer costs). Praetorians only have a short window of dominace on high levels, but they remain cost-effective for very long. Oromos are worth a beeline, have 3.5 effective free strikes against the usual defenders and are great upgraded to Rifles or directly to Infantry... but a few earlier units are also contenders for spot 5.

Bottom 5 Unique Units: Dog Soldier < Ballista Elephant < Bowman < Pansy = Seal

Spoiler :

The Dog Soldier is the only one I'd trade in for the standard version more often than not. Ballista Elephants and Bowman will often be irrelevant. Panzers and Seals come too late, may as well wait until you can win a global thermonuclear war.

Top 5 Unique Buildings: Sacrificial Altar = Ikhanda = Rathaus > Terrace > Hammam?

Spoiler :

I personally rate the Sacrificial Altar highest, but closely managing my whipping cycles has become second nature to me. Ikhanda and Rathaus stand out for giving some benefits early while putting most powerful lategame UBs to shame with corporations. The Terrace gives culture as a freebie on the first things to be built in new cities and allows us to conquer a source of culture.
The Hammam is very solid as an early and dependable cap raiser. I may get more excited about things like the Dike or Stock Exchange, but those are more situational/restrictive.

Bottom 5 Unique Buildings: Stele < Ger = Totem Pole < Obelisk = Citadel

Spoiler :

There are a lot of junk UBs, difficult to measure too situational vs. too weak vs. too late.
Stele does too little too early. I don't like pure military benefits, and I don't like obsolescence. The Obelisk and Citadel are more likely to be irrelevant than others, but they have potential (Apostolic Palace cheese win, highly promoted Artillery).

 

[pigswill]

No mention of Darius? Financial, organised + immortals.

 

[rah]

Traits are overrated. I would give away all traits to get a good starting position and never regret it in normal games.

+2

required 5 characters

 

[Handel]

I recently tried several games on monarch with Rome and felt like cheating using the praetorians. Vs AI the praetorians are unstoppable (a human player probably will rush me before I can get IW). Once you get feudalism the game is practically won - I easily vassalized the whole continent and because I am kinda of empire builder I just played to develop Rome as an empire, not to win.

 

[Mr. Wednesday]

Ballista Elephant: hard to come by resource and the bonus looks super minor (although it does seem to have potential). i never seem to get suryavarman though, so maybe i just haven't experienced the power of dodging AI spears yet.

They're incredibly useful at whittling down an enemy stack that's heavy in mounted units, all the way through tech levels where the stack is knights/macemen/pikemen. If you don't run into an enemy stack outside a city at the right tech level, then you will not get any extra use out of them over and above a regular elephant. But if you do get in that situation, it can make the difference between winning and losing. I think you need to end up on one side or the other of one of those fights to appreciate how powerful ballista elephants can be---I killed off an attempted invasion of me in part by using four or five ballista elephants to peel off the six or eight knights in the enemy stack.

 

[lymond]

They're incredibly useful at whittling down an enemy stack that's heavy in mounted units, all the way through tech levels where the stack is knights/macemen/pikemen. If you don't run into an enemy stack outside a city at the right tech level, then you will not get any extra use out of them over and above a regular elephant. But if you do get in that situation, it can make the difference between winning and losing. I think you need to end up on one side or the other of one of those fights to appreciate how powerful ballista elephants can be---I killed off an attempted invasion of me in part by using four or five ballista elephants to peel off the six or eight knights in the enemy stack.

Welcome to CFC! The issue with Balistas is bonus over base, which is the general qualifier for most UUs in comparing them. Their bonus is negligible and may be even a hindrance. They are still Elephants, so they hold the same value as regular Phants units, which is can be a very effective unit on any level. To qualify as a good UU, it would need a more exceptional bonus. Things like "Does not require ivory" or "Comes with Shock Promo" come to mind. Either one would be valuable and significantly up the status of the UU. Imagine if you could build Phants under any circumstance. I like innate bonus of Shock too as you can upgrade them later to Curs, putting them almost on par with Conquistadors, arguably the best UU in the game.

Just saying Balistas are a good UU because PHants are a good unit does not fly when comparing UUs, because the bonus is marginal to none and provides no tactical advantage.

 

[Quibblesome]

I possibly have a somewhat different view on worst buildings. To me a bad UB is one that doesn't really make sense or change your gameplan for the civilisation.

Obviously the Stele is the trashiest piece of crapola on the planet because it provides a cultural bonus on a creative leader.... that is organised. So it's super situational as Organised isn't a great trait to win efficient cultural victories with. IND or PHI are much more relevant. So this makes the Pavillion a much better UB assuming you're playing Qin (IND and PRO). Obviously if you're Mao its pretty sucky.

Totem Pole is weird as well cause the UU for the Natives isn't an archer it does tie a bit to PRO but the Dun and the Ger are way better because they combine well with the UU of those respective civs.

To me some of the worst UUs are just the ones that aren't interesting and don't change your game plan. Like the Shale Plant or the Seowan. While the Stock Exchange is equally as dull a Bank is one of the best buildings in the game so it deserves a little more leeway.

For me something like the Cothon is much more exciting as it opens up the possibility of trying to GLH and/or Artemis and get an early Compass.
I'd also argue that the Madrassa is a good UB because it provides Saladin with a potential unique play style based around Great Prophets.

I would agree that a lot of the late, late game unique buildings like Research Institute are kinda trashy though because they require a bit of underpants gnome thinking (question marks about the early-mid game) about your game plan to crowbar them into your strategy.

 

[Mr. Wednesday]

Welcome to CFC!

Thanks!

The issue with Balistas is bonus over base, which is the general qualifier for most UUs in comparing them. Their bonus is negligible and may be even a hindrance. They are still Elephants, so they hold the same value as regular Phants units, which is can be a very effective unit on any level. To qualify as a good UU, it would need a more exceptional bonus. Things like "Does not require ivory" or "Comes with Shock Promo" come to mind. Either one would be valuable and significantly up the status of the UU. Imagine if you could build Phants under any circumstance. I like innate bonus of Shock too as you can upgrade them later to Curs, putting them almost on par with Conquistadors, arguably the best UU in the game.

Just saying Balistas are a good UU because PHants are a good unit does not fly when comparing UUs, because the bonus is marginal to none and provides no tactical advantage.

I'm not saying they're good, per se, as their real benefit comes in very limited circumstances, and one can certainly imagine an alternative UU with advantages with greater applicability or greater power (as you have done). But I do think there is a real advantage in attacking an enemy stack menacing one of your own cities in bypassing pikes that would otherwise keep the ballista elephants off of the knights. I've had a game where I think that advantage turned a critical middle ages war against one of my principal rivals.

 

[Heathcliff]

You guys underestimate the creative trait. It's the by far best trait.
It saves the most turns out of all the traits. You no longer have to settle next to a food resource.
Also in conquered cities you get access to more tiles sooner.
Consider the cheaper libraries just a small perk.

Industrious is also better than the OP writes:
You can build useless wonders for the failgold, especially if you have the resource and you can do it in many cities. You won't get a better hammer -> commerce transformer than that.

Organized is one of the weaker traits and not one of the best as many of you write here:
Civic upkeep isn't a large cost and the cheaper courthouses can be whipped anyway

The only UU's that are significantly better than the regular ones are:
Incas, Mali, India and Egypts.

There is only one kickass UB:
Terrace.

The starting techs are important.
Hunting, Mysticism and fishing should be traded for and not researched.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Top Unique Units: Quechua = Skirmisher > War Chariot = Praetorian > Oromo?

Just throw in immortal instead of oromo lol. They're worse than war chariots, but not greatly so. Keshiks are probably better than oromos too.

I would put citadel ahead of crap like the forum too. AI is absolutely horrid vs massed collateral and grinding out CR III cannons or arty gives the AI a very, very hard time. Even tanks+ era stuff struggle vs cr III arty and quickly have losing odds...sometimes instantly. That UB isn't top tier but it doesn't deserve placement next to things like stele and forum .

 

[lymond]

^^^and I'd put Conquistadors over 3 on his top UU list. Something like:

Quecha>War Chariot>Conquistador>Immortal......

That would be technical. However, I really don't like Quechas at all, but they're OP for a reason. So for me WCs and Conquistadors are tops. I up Praets in the middling category.