Which Leader do you play the most and why?

[cairnsy44]

I enjoy playing a lot of different leaders. Ramsses, Willem, Joao, Mehmed, Huayna Capac and Hannibal are my favorites at the moment. If I had to shrink the list...Willem, Joao and Ramsses.

 

[AfterShafter]

You should add here Sitting bull too, to form the triad of the most powerful leaders in the game (subjected to their civilizations).
But i have to agree that their power edge depends on one specific strategy, being extremely agressive at the begining of the game, were other civs have no chance/means to stand ground. Many players won't like/accept this type of game developement, but it makes undisputably these three the better choices to win the game. Of course unless they start on an isolated island.

Huayna Capac, Pacal, and Sitting Bull are indisputably the best choices to win the game? I can understand you liking these guys, but... That's a pretty easy claim to dispute. If you aren't playing on small cramped maps, their super-early hitting power oftentimes don't do much for you at all... I know playing on huge maps all the time, a Quecha (spelling?) rush often isn't feasible due to raw distance early on, and the opponents likely having Axemen by the time you're even close to done with one Civ. A protective Civ is still a very tough nut to crack too, and there are plenty of those kicking around.

Chariot rushes from the Egyptians/Persians are every bit as effective for early game dominance - I often bump off two to three civs with Ramses easy, seeing as the CPU doesn't build many spearmen.

I like Pacal a lot, and recognize that Huayna is a good guy as well... Sitting Bull is not my cup of tea. Any which way, there is plenty of grounds to dispute the dominance you claim they have.

 

[Frostyboy]

For Warfare I love Cyrus. For Philosophical games Peter is pretty nice.

 

[DanS]

I feel you, man. I'm really sorry for what our country's administration has done. It makes me sick to think such a demonizing tyrant could have come to power in the land of the free.

If it's any consolation, most Americans really don't blame all Arabs or Muslims, it only seems that way because of the actions of a corrupt administration that waged an illegal war against a country that never invaded us, and Faux News.

Sorry... I'll get of my soap box. Just wanted you to know that not all of us Americans are like that.

Ah, so tyrannical that Muslims are persecuted en mass in the US and the voices of descent (like your post) are silenced.

Voices like these are relatively silent when considering labels for America's leaders during WWII considering the collusion of the press and the treatment of American citizens of Japanese heritage.

For the record and from the Right - I don't know of any American that wants to blame all Arabs or Muslims as your straw-man argument suggests, certainly not our current President.

DanS

 

[Rex rgis of Ter]

Never Mind

 

[Pe Ell]

It's fun to try different leaders and different strategies, some of my greatest wins have been with Cyrus and JC who I normally don't play so much. Seems like all leaders have something that attracts you about them. Still, I feel most confident with the financial trait and heavy cottage spam. Elizabeth was my first love with her killer combo. That philo trait is really nice for adding academies to your cottage centers. Cheap Unis also help for some scary research powers in late game. I usually open with a axe rush to take my nearest neighbor and use his capitol (they are often very food rich) as GP center for those GSs.

Currently I'm trying Willem, the creative trait is very flexible in early games and cheap libraries are really helpful. In my last game I landed in floodplain central, think I have 20+ of them spread around for my first 4-5 cities. Caravels by 300 A.D and going down towards education, going to bulb it finished with a CS and get astronomy from liberalism. Then the world will be mine!

So currently Lizzy #1 and Willem #2.

 

[baboonfan]

I have played with Willem so much... for the traits and I like Dike too. Now in my latest neverending game I chose Catherine and now I'm a fan of the Redcoats. And I can't forget Pacal II the athletic.

 

[Felix Luce]

(To anyone who mentioned Mehmed I hate Mehmed, I played using him once and I ended up with -21 gold per turn....with only 20% research in the Middle Ages!

 

[Dominico]

I play as lizzy, the great Churchill who saved Europe and also love playing as Romans. Saying that i play on a level too hard for me, and i have only won when i played as Carthage!!! (hannibal)

I also enjoyed playing Ragnar, but he seemed rubbish (my playing style more than him) and i did very well as the crazy South american guy with leaves in his hair (Forgot which one he is!!)

I still have loads which i never try because i am too stuck as playing england!!!

Just started a game as America for the first time which is going well though. Made some major regime changes so far and im planning one in Ethiopia. They need some Britney spears to expand their lack of culture lmao.

 

[Party]

(To anyone who mentioned Mehmed I hate Mehmed, I played using him once and I ended up with -21 gold per turn....with only 20% research in the Middle Ages!

That sounds like your fault, not his.

 

[sjkfbilsdbtg]

Genghis Khan, for no particular reason. Just seem to like the idea of having a massive "horde" to unleash.

 

[Jabarten]

Either Willem or Charlemagne....for their UB's

Dike is very powerful in the late game, the Rathaus, helps tremendously in the classical to Medieval era while trying to research, and cut costs, while building them quicker....just my views...

 

[lauralaura]

Elizabeth, recently. Best possible starting techs (for most purposes), flexible traits (SE or CE, both work pretty well), and a decent UU. But she's not so absurdly strong that it feels like cheating (hiya, Willem). Plus, I find Elizabeth very interesting as a historical figure, so it's fun to play her for that reason as well.

But really, I do tend to swap it around and play most leaders eventually, except for the Industrious ones. I just really really hate that trait. I'm allergic to pre-Renaissance wonders.

 

[Antilogic]

The English don't start with Agriculture and Mining, what are you talking about?

I personally like playing as the English, Germans, and Americans (Elizabeth, Frederick, Washington, or Lincoln) because of the later UUs and UBs...it forces you to think more in the early game, and play the traits well. Then, you mop up quickly, and go on to a new game.

I'll second your hatred of Industrious. For Culture wins, I'll take Philosophical any day (I played Pericles and Qin Shi Huang to a culture victory...Pericles was so much easier I was amazed anybody would consider using Industrious for that purpose). I like some of the wonders in the game, but I'll maybe build 3 before the Industrial Age, if that, because I'm too busy taking them from the AI by force.

 

[kristopherb]

England always

 

[Ricci]

Huayna Capac, Pacal, and Sitting Bull are indisputably the best choices to win the game? I can understand you liking these guys, but... That's a pretty easy claim to dispute. If you aren't playing on small cramped maps, their super-early hitting power oftentimes don't do much for you at all... I know playing on huge maps all the time, a Quecha (spelling?) rush often isn't feasible due to raw distance early on, and the opponents likely having Axemen by the time you're even close to done with one Civ. A protective Civ is still a very tough nut to crack too, and there are plenty of those kicking around.

Chariot rushes from the Egyptians/Persians are every bit as effective for early game dominance - I often bump off two to three civs with Ramses easy, seeing as the CPU doesn't build many spearmen.

I like Pacal a lot, and recognize that Huayna is a good guy as well... Sitting Bull is not my cup of tea. Any which way, there is plenty of grounds to dispute the dominance you claim they have.

The fact is Aftershafter I play exclusively marathon games were each epoch truly counts and you can make a diference, as an empire, in just one period of the game (tech tree). This is a limitation to my so called claim.
Of course Egypt ,specially Hatshepshut for her culture expansion grabing resources advantage, and Cyrus are excelent for early rushes as well, but they are still horse dependant for this matter ;you can get it much later than you wish or not at all.
With Huayna, Pacal II or Sitting Bull their advantage is guaranteed, for the latters you may even get BW in a tribal village (worth 40-50 turns of early research in marathon) without the dangerous need to have copper nearby nor a worker to conect the metal. I once got bw with Pacal while researching hunting. By the year 2000 BC I had already subdued 4 civilizations, including the obliteration of Summer (protective) and Persia (who never got to grab those horses within a second city spot.. as if). This was a huge continent with around ten civs which I ultimately dominated by the middle ages. Emperor level, no bragging intended, seriously.
Moreover, with Pacal your Mayan empire becomes almost immune to chariot, imm, war-chariot rushes. And well, you can already imagine what is it that Sitting Bull doesn't need to fear from.
Needless to mention, I'm leaving out of the topic their traits and UBs here, perhaps you care to discuss After..
If I had to choose I'll keep the good and old Pacal II anytime, but the other two are close enough.

 

[lauralaura]

I like fishing better than agriculture as a starting tech, especially as I tend to play on watery maps. Granted, if you end up stuck in the middle of a continent, it's not good, but massive quantities of seafood seem to pop up very often near my capital when I start on the coast -- I see two fish and a crab much more often than two corn and a rice.

Fishing boats are harder to pillage, and work boats don't cut into pop growth the way workers do.

As far as early wonders, I frequently take a stab at the Oracle, but that's about it, usually. I have reverse wonder-addiction.

 

[Felix Luce]

That sounds like your fault, not his.

Oh, well, it's only my nature to blame it on someone else

 

[Antilogic]

I like fishing better than agriculture as a starting tech, especially as I tend to play on watery maps. Granted, if you end up stuck in the middle of a continent, it's not good, but massive quantities of seafood seem to pop up very often near my capital when I start on the coast -- I see two fish and a crab much more often than two corn and a rice.

Fishing boats are harder to pillage, and work boats don't cut into pop growth the way workers do.

As far as early wonders, I frequently take a stab at the Oracle, but that's about it, usually. I have reverse wonder-addiction.

I always preferred a worker early because, although it does impede growth slightly, the work boat can only improve one tile, whereas a worker can improve many more. Somebody did a study awhile back, and I think the results were best (meaning high food and production) if you immediately produced a worker on turn one, given that you could get at least 3 food and production from a tile.

Although, I tend to play continents, hemispheres, or pangaea, so that might have something to do with it.

 

[JustinianVII]

Justinian's my favorite. Cataphracts make for a fun time in the Medieval and Renaissance eras. Plus, he has (almost) the same name as me.

I'm also partial to Joao and Pericles. Feitorias on an Archipelago map are insanely powerful. (I can only imagine what Darius of Portugal would be like...) Pericles' GP-popping ability can give huge tech leads.