Who is the best Charismatic Leader?

[TheMeInTeam]

Cotts were due to bad game design by Firaxis. Merchants aren't unlocked until far too late... So early armies are locked into a single type of play... sad to say.

I'm well aware of that reality (no way...FIRAXIS didn't balance the game properly?! Shenanigans ), just wanted to harass you a bit.

Nevertheless, the econ difference from traits pales in comparison to the combination of play quality (which I lacked), land available, and the kinds of AI you've to deal with.

 

[Fleme]

These really aren't easy polls to answer when you come to think of it.

Process of elimination cuts Brennus, Churchill, DG... but then I'm looking at a list of leaders that I like to play with.

Hmp. It's a toss between Napoleon and Hannibal for me and I guess with my current preferences I'm going to have to say Napoleon.

 

[obsolete]

TMIT, you still have that 4000 BC save? Maybe we can convert it into a solo and set it up for another Jap-Immortal-University thread.

In the end... when ever I feel I may give Jap a try, I always can't resist just taking Churchill instead.

Anyhow, these poll threads are somewhat useless anyway since no game is played in a vaccum.

 

[The Almighty dF]

Churchill, easy.
I explained why in another thread before seeing this one:

Charismatic. He has quicker growth early due to a higher happiness cap, all of his units level up quicker.
Protective. Normally the worst or second worst trait in the game depending on who you ask, but means his UU starts off with some very useful promotions. Combine this with Cha and you get some -extremely- powerful redcoats easily.
His UU of course is easily one of the best in the game, and again benefits directly from both traits.
His UB also provides economic assistance for that massive redcoat onslaught you're ready to unleash.

Churchill is, basically, Tokugawa Improved. He has a similar strategy, but he's got a better UB, better starting techs, and with Cha he at least gets a -little- bit of early game assistance.

 

[Ororo]

Why is Navy SEAL considered to be a bad UU?

 

[Fleme]

@dF The problem with Churchill I see is that he's kind of putting all his eggs in that redcoat basket with his traits. I'm not saying that it's bad since all it takes is an opportunity to make an era-specific top tier unit make the game (Rome, anyone?) The reason I don't like him that much is that I absolutely loathe protective and while Charismatic is arguably the best trait in the game, Pro just ruins it for me - not to mention when I'm feeling English I'll go Liz or Vic.

What I'm kind of surprised is how Cyrus is leading the poll. I mean, I agree that the synergy is so obvious that it almost hurts and he will carry supersoldiers through the entire game with great generals fueling fast promotions and all that jazz... but... Darius? I don't think I've ever played a game with Cyrus and that's just because Darius is so freaking awesome that Persia to me without Darius is no Persia at all.

Hannibal leads poll, and I'm not surprised. He's an economical monster with potential to translate all that to war. UU sucks but that's not the reason to play him anyways.

I'll still stick behind my vote for Napoleon. Organized fits my playstyle well with my tendency of large empires and while both his UU and UB are nothing I fancy, I just like the ORG/CHA combo really much.

I'd love to see more of people's reasonings on why they vote specific leaders.

@Ororo: Majority of games end before they come into play. Even when they do, they're not something you should focus on because Tanks/Air Superiority combined with regular jarheads will do the trick just as fine. Free March and free first strikes are great and all but the fact is that they're just fancy infantry without the bonus against gunpowder and some minor tricks up their sleeves which come in way too late to make an impact on any game. Can you recall a game where the bulk of your force consisted of specialists such as marines/seals?

 

[The Almighty dF]

Why is Navy SEAL considered to be a bad UU?

The only thing that makes it unique... isn't often that useful. That and I think it is the latest UU in-game, even later than the Panzer.

^ The problem with Churchill I see is that he's kind of putting all his eggs in that redcoat basket with his traits. I'm not saying that it's bad since all it takes is an opportunity to make an era-specific top tier unit make the game (Rome, anyone?) The reason I don't like him that much is that I absolutely loathe protective and while Charismatic is arguably the best trait in the game, it just ruins it for me - not to mention when I'm feeling English I'll go Liz or Vic.

What I'm kind of surprised is how Cyrus is leading the poll. I mean, I agree that the synergy is so obvious that it almost hurts and he will carry supersoldiers through the entire game with great generals fueling fast promotions and all that jazz... but... Darius? I don't think I've ever played a game with Cyrus and that's just because Darius is so freaking awesome that Persia to me without Darius is no Persia at all.

Hannibal leads poll, and I'm not surprised. He's an economical monster with potential to translate all that to war. UU sucks but that's not the reason to play him anyways.

I'll still stick behind my vote for Napoleon. Organized fits my playstyle well with my tendency of large empires and while both his UU and UB are nothing I fancy, I just like the ORG/CHA combo really much.

I'd love to see more of people's reasonings on why they vote specific leaders.

I'll admit Protective is weak, and I will only call two protective leaders not sucky. Churchill and Wang.

I too am amazed Cyrus is getting so highly rated, I've honestly never won a game with him. Maybe I just really suck at using him right, though.
I tend to fail with him for the same reason I fail with Montezuma. Early war, I win, economy ceases to exist, everyone gets ahead of me technologically, I'm doomed.

Hannibal is amazing, and makes up for having one of the worst UUs in game.

Napoleon... eh. I'm biased, I hate the France civ. Worthless UU unless you play on normal or quick, irritating UB due to GP pollution.
I'm not surprised to see Brennus in dead last. I've only seen a few real fans of him, and from the way they talk every map they play is covered in hills. I can only say one positive thing about Brennus: He's useful against Suryavaraman and Sitting Bull, since in my experience both seem to -seek out- hills to build on. So if they're your neighbors, you're in luck.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

TMIT, you still have that 4000 BC save? Maybe we can convert it into a solo and set it up for another Jap-Immortal-University thread.

In the end... when ever I feel I may give Jap a try, I always can't resist just taking Churchill instead.

Anyhow, these poll threads are somewhat useless anyway since no game is played in a vaccum.

Does MP even tag 4000 BC autosaves? Even if it did though, I played an earth18 with QNL since then so it's a no go .

I can run another Japanese (or other poor tech guy) IU though.

 

[ICNP]

Ah yes, the European Trait. The funny thing is that the non-Europeans are winning this race.

I voted Hannibal, but I regret it already. I never have a good game with him, yet I always play on water maps with him. I blame Zara for this, but I guess I may very well get the "No Excuses!" response too.

So if I could revote, I'd say Washington of a cool civ, like India.

 

[NihilZero]

About Churchill - weak as Protective is, its greatest strength is obviously the draft, and who are the quintessential draft units? Riflemen of course, or Redcoats in this case. Churchill RCs are genuinely formidable and arguably the best draft unit of all.

As for France sucking, no Civ that starts with Agriculture and the Wheel can possibly be bad. Napoleon is a monster. As for uniques, who really cares about them? They are a nice bonus when you have good ones but don't really hurt you when they're bad - although the Salon can acutally hurt you sometimes when you tear your hair out after getting your third Great Artist against the odds. The Musketeer has his moments, occasionally.

 

[lymond]

I voted for Hannibal. Strong traits and the UB is fairly strong. However, his UU/UB tend to be along tech paths I generally don't prioritize. I belong to the camp that Numids are rather weak.

 

[obsolete]

Does MP even tag 4000 BC autosaves?

I believe so, there is a separate list of auto-saves in the multi-player directory. Though it's probably over-written by now anyway...

 

[bhavv]

Hannibal again for me, for peaceful use of CHA, not war.

Archipelago map, Stonehenge + GLH. Huge cities very early on, and lots and lots and lots of them! Cothons are terrific to keep the economy strong.

Then you go free market + sushi co later on.

I voted for Hannibal. Strong traits and the UB is fairly strong. However, his UU/UB tend to be along tech paths I generally don't prioritize. I belong to the camp that Numids are rather weak.

The AI doesnt prioritize compass either, and that makes it even better. Tech for compass and use it to trade for loads of other techs.

 

[plasmacannon]

Tie score Hannibal 25, Cyrus 25. Who will win the Tie-breaker?

View Poll Results: Who is the best Charismatic Leader?
Boudica [AGG/CHA] 6 7.06%
Washington [CHA/EXP] 5 5.88%
Hannibal [CHA/FIN] 25 29.41%
Cyrus [CHA/IMP] 25 29.41%
De Gaulle [CHA/IND] 3 3.53%
Napoleon [CHA/ORG] 9 10.59%
Lincoln [CHA/PHI] 8 9.41%
Churchill [CHA/PRO] 3 3.53%
Brennus [CHA/SPI] 1 1.18%

 

[Jerrymander]

Anyhow, these poll threads are somewhat useless anyway since no game is played in a vaccum.

Are you calling the metagame useless? (It is.)

 

[revengeofmakno]

I like Hannibal but voted Cyrus. It is difficult to have a bad game with him. He gets established well and the UU allows for very good early military options. A fast start is always good and you get one with him.

 

[plasmacannon]

I like Hannibal but voted Cyrus. It is difficult to have a bad game with him. He gets established well and the UU allows for very good early military options. A fast start is always good and you get one with him.

Sure it is, it is called Multiplayer Maya.

 

[The Almighty dF]

Y'know, the more I think about it, the better Washington is.
Not having to worry about health and happiness in the early game? Very nice. Cheap workers, cheap granaries? Nice. Cha's as great as always for warfare, and exp gives a bit of a boost as well if you think about it, in that it kinda negates the unhealthiness from forges.

Honestly, all three American leaders have some great synergy going on, I need to play the more.
Roosevelt's a biggie, as he's got dibs on the GLH. No other leader can get to it as fast as he can.

 

[mirthadir]

Hannible.

Economy trumps UU for this, particularly on immort or higher where spears are almost a given. Numidians aren't that great ... until you realize that you spam a bunch of them and use your mass FIN to power upgrade them to curis/cav. Cav in particular really do well starting as FII/CI. In no time at all you can be running around with CI/Pinch/FII cav which are just too good (add spies and airships and you can level rifle AIs and even have decent trades with MGs).

 

[Jerrymander]

Hannible.

And his brother, Terrible?