Who is the best conquer leader

[apocalypsetm]

I was just wandering who do you think is the best conquer leader .
My pesonal favorite is Napoleon . In the mid game Musketeers can beat every unit even more advandced ones (in groups of course) and wonders can be built very fast . Awaiting replys

 

[Shoot the Moon]

I would have to say Ceaser. Praeortians are, arguably, the most overpowered unit in the game. And they come very early, which is espicially helpful at higher levels, where you won't survive long enough to get the tech for musketmen.

 

[Grimz101]

ceaser easily, relies on iron though, no iron = not a happy ceaser.
musketeers get outdated on the games i play lol, go financel civ so id say the inca guy, quick rush with his uu to secure some land, then go expansion fueled by cottages and financel strat, cottage stratergy yourself till industrialation, and lmao watch your tanks kill anything from musketeers, to cavalary (at best). lol i remember when i did cottage statergy with him, wow 1 tank with collateral damage per city, rest with city raider, just use to lose the 1 tank with coll ! no need for artillery lmao

 

[DarthBeer]

As has already been said, Rome and the Incans are probably the 2 best conquerers, due to their early, powerful UU's.
I personally like Persia with their mounted Immortals bonus vs archers, and the creative trait to expand those borders after taking cities.

BTW, this probably belongs in the general strategy forum, as this is for articles

 

[Moonsinger]

I was just wandering who do you think is the best conquer leader .
My pesonal favorite is Napoleon . In the mid game Musketeers can beat every unit even more advandced ones (in groups of course) and wonders can be built very fast . Awaiting replys

Like everyone above me, I vote for Ceasar. Playing as Ceasar seems so unfair to the AI (even at Deity level) because they don't really know how to deal with him. As for multiplayer game, Ceasar isn't that powerful. Axeman is the key to defeat Ceasar.

 

[thordk]

going to conquest with cesar feels like cheating
for later wars russia is nice. catherines creative and financial traits help to pay your military upkeep, let your conquered cities regain culture faster and the cosak is a very powerful unit. though it comes a little bit late.

 

[Gaizokubanou]

Like everyone above me, I vote for Ceasar. Playing as Ceasar seems so unfair to the AI (even at Deity level) because they don't really know how to deal with him. As for multiplayer game, Ceasar isn't that powerful. Axeman is the key to defeat Ceasar.

Sure axemans are little cheaper, but aren't the Legions just plain out better, even going 1 on 1 against axemans? 5 + (5 x 0.5) = 7.5, which is obviously < 8

Unless the 50% bonus cuts 50% off of legions attack, which would be crazy lol

 

[Bismarck II]

I say the best leader to kick but/ass with is either the Incas or Aztects, but I always play wit Bismarck so who cares?

 

[Moonsinger]

Sure axemans are little cheaper, but aren't the Legions just plain out better, even going 1 on 1 against axemans? 5 + (5 x 0.5) = 7.5, which is obviously < 8

Unless the 50% bonus cuts 50% off of legions attack, which would be crazy lol

Axemans are somehow magically round up to 50% vs 50% when going against Legions. Since axemans are much cheaper to replace, axemans win!

 

[Artanis]

Axemans are somehow magically round up to 50% vs 50% when going against Legions. Since axemans are much cheaper to replace, axemans win!

Huh?

What was the situation? Do you have a screenshot?

 

[Thalassicus]

I like an early land grab, solidify my territory, followed by a midgame expansion. Catherine's the leader for me

 

[DangerousMonkey]

Rome is hot for the obvious benifit of Praetorians, but unfortunately they have just about the worsts two civ traits possible. Kleshiks can cause incredible ammounts of trouble if you can deny your opponent copper or iron, but they're too easily countered with spearmen. Still, that great movment ability means you can concentrate your forces easily, or do some excellent raiding. Egypt is also pretty hot because of those War Chariots. They're availible early and they're cheap as hell to build at about half what a horse-archer costs, so you can make an insane stack of them.

As for the Incans and thier Quechua, I think they're highly overrated. In fact, I feel so strongly about this that I did a thread on it.

As for Napoleon and musketters... umm... I really don't think they even regester on the "conquerer" scale.

 

[MyOtherName]

I like organized. *shrug* It encourages me to have large empires!

If nothing else, on turn 1 at Emporer level, organized saves you 2 commerce per turn. And in an era where one's economy is dominated by your palace and gold/gem tiles, organized allows you to prolong the early land grab!

 

[Gazglum]

I would like to put in a bid for Kublai Khan. I think creative is my favourite warmongering trait, because the ability to rapidly expand the borders of just conquered cities makes them productive again much much faster than they would otherwise be. Caesar is probably better overall though.

 

[joasoze]

Rome is hot for the obvious benifit of Praetorians, but unfortunately they have just about the worsts two civ traits possible. Kleshiks can cause incredible ammounts of trouble if you can deny your opponent copper or iron, but they're too easily countered with spearmen. Still, that great movment ability means you can concentrate your forces easily, or do some excellent raiding. Egypt is also pretty hot because of those War Chariots. They're availible early and they're cheap as hell to build at about half what a horse-archer costs, so you can make an insane stack of them.

As for the Incans and thier Quechua, I think they're highly overrated. In fact, I feel so strongly about this that I did a thread on it.

As for Napoleon and musketters... umm... I really don't think they even regester on the "conquerer" scale.

I feel the opposite. The incans are great. Early fast expansion and then the financial trait kicks in on all the conquered land. The inca UU is usful agains archers, and archers are used for city defence for a long time. They are cheap to chop out in great numbers for early conquest.

 

[spiceant]

i play japan in all my huge/emperor games, i really need the organized trait because it doubles courthouses buildspeed and also reduces the civic upkeep dramatically. With other civs i get massive civic upkeep, even with low upkeep civics.
agressive is a no brainer for conquerers

 

[Strobe]

I like Cossacks which are powerful for quite a long time and have the extra movement for sweeping conquest.

Redcoats I personally like but are better in epic games.

I haven't really played a roman game yet so I'm not sure on the praetorian but it looks way overpowered especially against the AI.

 

[Yzen Danek]

These early UU strategies seem really vulnerable to me. Playing on quick or standard speeds, on large or huge maps, or on any maps with water separation, your UU is hopelessly outdated by the time you even meet everybody.

If the only way your strategy works is by artificially limiting the game conditions to one of the types you know you can win, that's not much of a strategy.

Balanced across all game types, I would have to say the Chinese win hands-down. Games where I get assigned the Chinese are usually really easy domination wins. They have first strike, collateral damage units that defend well, and if the game lasts until the modern era, you find yourself uprgrading to infantry or SAM infantry with 6 first strikes.

 

[SlipperyJim]

I like Cossacks which are powerful for quite a long time and have the extra movement for sweeping conquest.

Redcoats I personally like but are better in epic games.

Axemen can eventually promote to Redcoats, and they can get City Raider promotions. A Redcoat with City Raider 3 is grossly unfair.... However, that's a Marathon game; it would probably be obsolete too quickly in a normal-speed game.

 

[Aardvark Fury]

After playing 3 Epic games at Noble level (despite being an experienced Civ3 player) and losing each time I decided to trawl the leader characteristics in detail to find the one that suited my playing style best: perfectionist with an economic and scientific focus and a military tailored to defensive and/or expeditionary warfare tasks. After looking through the list I chose Catherine (Russia). I am currently at least 300 points ahead of my nearest rival in about 1700AD and have just concluded a war with Alexander where I pillaged 85% of his territory, took one city and gave it to the Germans (they had been pummelled by Alexander earlier in the game) and razed another. I could have take many more but didn't choose to. I have to say I am extremely impressed with the Cossack as a military unit. My brigades (3 x Cossacks) were practically industructible. In the whole c.20 turn campaign I did not lose a single Cossack unit. At one time they managed to defeat multiple attacks by Grenadiers, Riflemen and Catapults. They are an extremely powerful offensive and raiding unit that is strong enough (18) to defend themselves without wasteful losses. If I was being more agressive I reckon the Cossacks could spearhead my quest for World domination! The only problem is that they upgrade to Gunships and not Tanks, as I'd prefer.

So far, and I have also played Caesar and Bismark, Catherine gets my vote!