Which leader would you choose?

[futurehermit]

Which leader would you choose if you had to play a game with totally random settings (random map/climate/opponents/etc.)?

You don't know the start. Who would you choose?

My thinking is that you want to play as someone who has a good opening on both the coast or inland, and that is tough to balance. Some leaders open great on one or the other, but are less than stellar if they get the opposite. My favourite example of this is Hatty. She's great if you start inland, but doesn't have much going for her if she starts on the coast.

For coastal starts:

Expansive gets cheap harbors
Organized gets cheap lighthouses
Industrious can get the GLH and Colossus easier
Financial gets +1 commerce per coastal tile
Leaders that start with fishing can start with a workboat

I also feel that you want someone who can rush or rex equally well and that is hard to find, especially when paired with the above.

For Rexing:

Creative eliminates the need for monuments/teching mysticism
Expansive gives cheap workers/granaries
Financial helps pay the bills
Imperialistic gives cheap settlers
Organized helps pay the bills/cheap courthouses

For Rushing:

Aggressive helps with the axerush and cheap barracks
Charismatic gives quicker access to higher promotions
Imperialistic gives quicker access to GG/Medic 3 unit
Creative helps with initial city placement

For both Rexing and Rushing, starting with hunting is nice for much better early scouting of terrain and opponent location (I also hate popping barbs from huts).

Of course none of this takes UUs and UBs into account.

Another consideration about the terrain is that I think it is good to being open to go CE, SE, or hybrid depending on the map, so that is something to think about as well.

Basically, leader-to-map fit is important imo and what leader is going to fit more maps? Another way of asking who the most flexible leader is I guess.

I find when I play as a leader who has a strong inland start (my preference) I reload if I get coastal (and vice versa; e.g., Issy if I want early religion). I'm trying to break this habit and am first looking to do so with a leader who is very adaptable depending on the start.

I'm leaning toward a leader who has hunting (best way to see what your surroundings are asap to impact how you start) and industrious (only way to get GLH faster for coastal starts, can nab some wonders to help inland like Stonehenge/Oracle, or can wonderspam a la Obsolete if get a strong production site).

What do you think?

 

[Navarre]

Zara Yacob.

CRE and ORG gives you a total of 6 cheaper buildings (library, theatre, colosseum, courthouse, lighthouse and factory) and are bound to be useful no matter what the map looks like. And he has a resourceless UU, which you can leverage no matter what. He starts with Hunting and Mining : fast scouting, fast bronze-working.

I don't play him much but I've never had a bad game with him, and I've never seen him doing bad as an AI. He's not stellar at any particular point of the game, but is really solid.

edit : Darius and HC are just broken IMO, that's why I don't mention them.

 

[schwartz]

Darius or Lincoln for sure.
The top 4 traits, or close to it, between them. (I also like Spiritual, Industrious [sometimes], and Creative leaders)

I also agree with Navarre, my hall of fame is dominated by games with Zara (domination wins, every last one )

I try not to build too many wonders (usually), I prefer to capture them so industrious isn't the best fit for me.

 

[Rusten]

Pericles regardless of settings.

 

[Lucky Charms]

Mehmed is an extraordinarily flexible leader who can lend himself to many strategies.

Zara seems good, but I haven't got Beyond the Sword.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I'm so used to Washington, but in theory any of the American leaders would cut it. You start out with fishing (strong on coasts) and agriculture (usable with most inland starts, via either a river or corn/rice/wheat.

Probably the best of them depends on play style. People who are good with specialists or GP farms would probably favor Lincoln...wonderspammers would go for Roosevelt, and people who just like to get big cities and knock heads like me would go Washington. Expansive is very underrated. Cheap granaries and workers come VERY early, and having a lot of workers can get cities out lightning quick. Who actually gets 1.5 the amount of workers early on with expansive? But you probably should...they bring cities up to speed so fast when important buildings are getting chopped instantly and food resources are hooked up within a couple turns of founding. Whip out the granary for a big city in no time .

Of course, either Roman is pretty solid too. I believe they also start with fishing, and prats are good if you have neighbors and the forum for GP helps with economy if you do not.

English are also powerful...another fishing civ, with a powerful UU and UB. You can go peaceful or warlike depending on the leader you choose (I kind of like Vicky most actually, unless you count appearance...but the toad has good traits for me).

I'm finding certain traits (expansive, charismatic, imperialistic, creative, financial, organized) to be very strong for getting a bunch of early cities set up to the point that they are positive contributors to the empire. They might do it in different ways, but they do it.

Most civs have leaders with one of the above to make use of, many both...in this case you just want the starting techs to align. I'd say the best starting techs for ANY map at random would be a combination of fishing and either agriculture or mining, as this lets you hook up resources more quickly while teching bronze, archers, etc.

 

[Roxlimn]

Isabella of Spain, Mehmed of the Ottomans (?), and Suryavarman of the Khmer are the most flexible leaders in my reckoning. For reference, I don't reload maps regardless of how bad it appears. Yes, sometimes this means that Financial (or Aggressive or Industrious) isn't as good as it otherwise could be, but that's how these things go.

Yes, all of these leaders are Expansive.

 

[r_rolo1]

Mr " I can't lie, father" aka as Washinghton . Cha/Exp means more happyness and more health = bigger cities = more everything = easier victory

 

[Iranon]

I usually play Shuffle with random water/climate and play what I get... but I still prefer leaders with a somewhat focused approach; some leaders have bonuses that are applicable in a wide range of settings but in the end I would go for raw power. Ranks:


1) Huayna Capac. Quechua hordes of Doom, or the ultimate builder... what's not to like?

2) Darius. Again, two strong economic traits and an excellent unit for a brutal and efficient rush.

3) Augustus Caesar: Can REX, can spam wonders very reliably (easier to get wonders and expanding at the same time, thanks to cheaper settlers), has a very useful UU that remains viable for a very long time.
Not too gimped by an all-forest start thanks to settler chopping.

4) Gandhi. Adaptable and powerful SE leader; very flexible and great at exploiting opportunities. The main reason he isn't number 3 is because he doesn't lend himself too well too early warfare and because I'm usually too lazy to play him optimally. Learning micromanagement tricks that require Spiritual was fun. Doing it all the time... isn't.
Yes, he has little going for him that's water-specific...

5) Peter: Another great SE leader who too, unfortunately, has nothing to recommend him for rushing. I find EXP a very useful support trait... on land maps the worker discount and health bonus are very noticable, on water maps I tend to lean heavily on the whip hence a bonus on granaries is very welcome; cheaper harbors don't exactly hurt either.
The Uniques come a little late, but I find the Research Institute rather impressive.

Honourable mention: Willem. I WANT to like him. With a strong economic trait, free culture which can be very useful on land maps and the best UB for water maps, he seems well balanced and able make the best out of any map.
in practice though... I simply hate CRE, and playing without relevant Uniques and only 1 trait I value highly isn't enough.

 

[Bandobras Took]

This may seem odd, but . . .

Sitting Bull. Resourceless Axemen and great Archers, Philosophical for good specialist results -- I always seem to do well with him no matter the map.

 

[Olodune]

Willem or Hannibal. They are both fantastic inland leaders, and on the coast ... well ... they do alright

 

[Dirk1302]

Liz, financial/philosophical are good traits regardless of the map.

 

[eewallace]

I've found Darius's traits to be about the most versatile.

 

[madscientist]

Looking for an adaptable, versatile leader. On or Land or by the Sea. Amongst other leaders or isolated. All different terrain. Generally applicable traits.

1) Huayna Capac: Without a doubt the best start. Quechuas can take out any adjacent leader except perhaps Sitting Bull/Hammarabi/Mansa Musa yet are stronge enough to defend barbs in isolation without even building an Axe or archer. Financial is useful on coast or landlocked with a CE game. Industrious allows early wonder spamming due to less need for military techs. Agriculture/Mysticism gets you food and the opportunity for an early religion. Early fast forges with a MC slingshot is hard to miss.

2) Washington: 2 solid food techs to start with, extra happiness and health. Expansive gets fast wrokers/harbors/graneries regardless of starting location. Can pursue the peaceful or military angle. Lincoln is stronger long-term but weaker at the start.

3) Mehmed II and Zara simply for the massive number of free building they can construct! Plus ORG allows a very large empire.

4) Asoka: The best UU in the game. Starts with Myst for an early religion, mining for an early shot at BW. Spir and ORG allow extremely large empires early. Can be an insane war mongerer with pyramids (police state) and Vassalage but can also be a veyr effective peaceful techer.

.

 

[semirami]

Which leader would you choose if you had to play a game with totally random settings (random map/climate/opponents/etc.)?

Random leader

 

[tycoonist]

Hannibal Hannibal Hannibal

 

[futurehermit]

It's nice to see that my thinking was on par with a lot of the community. I was thinking of Zara/Mehmed, as well as HC/Darius/Hannibal/Willem/Liz, and the Americans are also very flexible imo.

My problem is deciding on one of them! Of course I play with a variety of leaders, but I'm trying to settle on one who I can play for awhile and feel like I can win monarch regardless of the terrain I get dealt. Once I master that then I feel like I'm ready to move up to Emperor (instead of making the move, but only playing with the strongest leaders on terrain that suits them for example).

Hopefully more responses will help me make up my mind

 

[madscientist]

It's nice to see that my thinking was on par with a lot of the community. I was thinking of Zara/Mehmed, as well as HC/Darius/Hannibal/Willem/Liz, and the Americans are also very flexible imo.

My problem is deciding on one of them! Of course I play with a variety of leaders, but I'm trying to settle on one who I can play for awhile and feel like I can win monarch regardless of the terrain I get dealt. Once I master that then I feel like I'm ready to move up to Emperor (instead of making the move, but only playing with the strongest leaders on terrain that suits them for example).

Hopefully more responses will help me make up my mind

If you are looking for 1, it's gotta be HC IMHO.

 

[futurehermit]

HC:

Rush: Yes
Coastal: Yes
Rex: ? Ok I guess he doesn't need to prioritize copper/horse cities for barb defense and fin can fund expansion efforts; chopped granaries take care of culture needs...

Yeah, I guess maybe he is the best of the lot. I really need to work granaries more into my game anyways so...yeah...thanks!

What I don't like about him is that he starts with mysticism. Early religion is a risky proposition at best. Plus, with the UB you don't need to be building monuments or stonehenge. So, yeah, what is the point of starting with mysticism?

 

[madscientist]

HC:

Rush: Yes
Coastal: Yes
Rex: ? Ok I guess he doesn't need to prioritize copper/horse cities for barb defense and fin can fund expansion efforts; chopped granaries take care of culture needs...

Yeah, I guess maybe he is the best of the lot. I really need to work granaries more into my game anyways so...yeah...thanks!

What I don't like about him is that he starts with mysticism. Early religion is a risky proposition at best. Plus, with the UB you don't need to be building monuments or stonehenge. So, yeah, what is the point of starting with mysticism?

If you do not pursue and early religion, starting with mysticism is still 2 techs away from opening up the Oracal for an industrious leader. There is not a better leader for beelining the oracal and nailing it. Taking MC is fantastic for fast forges to become a production powerhouse early. If on the coast you can get the colossus fast for 4 commerce from HC!!

So, industrious starting with Mysticism = MC slingshot and first to forges by a mile. You want Pottery for the UB anyway and usually tech BW early.