Who is the best?

[feralminded]

Unless you're spain or if you just got DoW'ed by some medieval horde and the city they are heading at already has a wall ... you should never be building castles ... there's just always better ways to spend those hammers. Its the weakest building in the game before Laboratories and Nuclear plants ... Labs because they are so late its irrelevant and Nukes because they're just brokenly bad.

 

[Joshua368]

What the heck are you talking about, labs are one of the most useful buildings in the game when going for a space race win. Go Refridgeration --> Superconductors early (even before Rocketry) and have them set up everywhere in preparation for the space race. 25% science, 50% spaceship production, that's a powerful building right there, extra scientist specialist to boot. Plus the tech will give you thrusters to build right out the bat. During tight space races it certainly isn't irrelevant.

They beat the crap out of the worthless Space Elevator at least.

Castles and Nuclear Plants I will agree though, they are pretty worthless. Castles mostly due to how early I like beeline economics for the GM... usually right after the lib race.


Another useless building I'd say is the Recycling center... even during space wins ecology usually isn't a very high priority until late. They don't solve health problems as much as you'd think, as a lot of unhealth comes from bonuses and power, not just buildings. Plus hammer-wise its pretty expensive, at least compared to the earlier health buildings which should solve almost all of your issues -- aqueduct, grocer, hospital, supermarket, public transportation, and real late game Genetics is a nicer option because the health is free.

 

[feralminded]

Yeah ... I guess my opinion on labs is skewed by the fact that I haven't won or even attempted a space race in the last two years with the exception of a very recent game where I started to go that way (or should say fumble that way since I definitely have no idea what I'm doing in that arena) and lost long before I got my first part built. It still seems worthless to me in the majority of games. I mean I could say castles are a godsend as long as I predicate it with the statement "when playing spain and delaying economics until after steel". I mean nuke plants are awesome "as long as they never fail". Labs are apparently awesome "as long as you are going for a space win". All suck because they require overly specific predications to be useful. I suppose I hate most late game buildings that are not generally useful. Early game buildings I tend to give more leeway simply because they have more game in which to become needed. I generally think Aqueducts and even sometimes Colosseums are a waste but over the course of a 500 turn or longer game its pretty likely I'll find a few cities that need them. Labs and Castles ... not so much ... and nukes ... well nobody would ever build one in civ unless its like 30 turns from the end of the game and at that point does it matter?

What would be nice is if nukes became completely clean when you teched fusion ... but even then fusion is usually one of the last techs to get so whats it matter?

 

[feralminded]

And I concur about recycling centers. I had forgotten about them. It would be nice if late game pollution was handled in a better and more interesting fashion so that all of these nifty modern buildings could do something useful. Instead we get the same old health/unhealth and the ******ed global warming. In many ways I miss the old pollution tiles from earlier version of civ since at least there was something interesting to do about pollution ... but thats an entirely different discussion.

 

[Mesodius]

Have to go with Darius. I've had the most luck with him, especially if I have horses at the start for an early rush. However, what I like most of all is his trait combo, lets me REX almost Civ 3 style without going utterly bankrupt.

 

[Cutlass]

Charlemagne!!!

I liked Charlie the few times I tried him Since then I've tried Ragnar, Which ended in a diplo victory, and am currently playing Justantine I, which could end in several types of victory depending on what I do next. Diplo is probably out, But I could do Domination or Cultural.

 

[dragodon64]

Havuoska, I see where you're coming from. But you say that castles have the advantage of of being obsoleted by Astronomy, yet they are obsoleted (usually, by my playstyle) before that by Economics. Free market gives the effect of castles in every city, although I find myself using mercantilism about half my games instead. Also, when I get the wealth from trading resources for cash and other resources seems much more profitable than pillaging seafood and sickening the enemy's cities. If you had to pillage, privateers may come later, but they can do so without the war and lost trade, while also blocking enemy trade routes and making you money while you're at it.

 

[AfterShafter]

... Sitting Bull.

No, seriously, he's my favorite leader. Those longbows are just dreamy, phi is a great trait to keep an economy going, and those powerful gundpowder units will carry you all game, any game, regardless of resources, while phil gives you the economic edge to be competitive on a tech front. Sitting Bull can pull through situations which would leave many other high profile leaders crippled due to lack of resources - and he'll do it well. All longbowmen/siege armies can do the job in very high difficulties, and dog soldiers are an incredible stasius rush unit. The guy can run specialist economies very well, does well on hybrid, and in general, is just a leader who is good for almost any map type, both militarily and economically - something that can't be said of many high profile leaders, who suck without some resource or general terrain type, etc etc. Consistency counts a lot for me - a lot of leaders truly excel with certain map types, certain resources, a few restarts, etc... SB is one of those guys who can excel in a lot of cases, but will do very well in just about any crap-shoot you stick him in.

Now if they made a pro/org leader, old Bull might have some competition...

 

[dragodon64]

Currently playing a game as SB, and while you're absolutely right on his philosophical traits, I think you're exaggerating on the military end. Granted this isn't how all (or even most enemies are) but I just attacked Joao whose army is 100% longbows and catapults (Dog Soldier useless). My swords, cats, HAs and of course, Drill IV longbows, were able to take him easily, but the protective bonus was still minimal. While they didn't require any resources, their power is still quite low for their cost and they can't get city raider.

Also, about leaders being dependent on resources, as much as I like Philosophical, it is VERY happiness dependent. I have only sugar (and traded gold and wine), representation and 2 religions in most cities and its still very hard to get happy populations above 13.

But a Phi/Cha leader (aka Lincoln) has everything geared for a specialist economy that isn't excessively dependent on wonder building. And charismatic is also much more of a military trait than protective is.

Now if they made a Phi/Ind leader, the specialist economy would crush all competition...

 

[AfterShafter]

Currently playing a game as SB, and while you're absolutely right on his philosophical traits, I think you're exaggerating on the military end. Granted this isn't how all (or even most enemies are) but I just attacked Joao whose army is 100% longbows and catapults (Dog Soldier useless). My swords, cats, HAs and of course, Drill IV longbows, were able to take him easily, but the protective bonus was still minimal. While they didn't require any resources, their power is still quite low for their cost and they can't get city raider.

Also, about leaders being dependent on resources, as much as I like Philosophical, it is VERY happiness dependent. I have only sugar (and traded gold and wine), representation and 2 religions in most cities and its still very hard to get happy populations above 13.

But a Phi/Cha leader (aka Lincoln) has everything geared for a specialist economy that isn't excessively dependent on wonder building. And charismatic is also much more of a military trait than protective is.

Now if they made a Phi/Ind leader, the specialist economy would crush all competition...

Dragodon, I`m not going to get into a debate over the merits of protective because I`ve been in a half dozen *long* ones in this forum before, but if you`re not finding those high drill units with CG, those high CG units with a bit of drill, or just the mixed drill/whatever units to be powerful, you're stressing the wrong types of fights with them. Drill units get a moderate + to win percentile, take notably less collatoral damage, and hardly take any damage when they have an odds advantage. The longbow is a unit that naturally gets a variety of fortification bonuses, and stands to benefit a great deal from terrain/cities, and its low cost relative to other combat units in the period allows for a large force of them. They dominate other similar-era units in the right circumstances, while costing less than those units - you just need to leverage those circumstances as much as possible.

Stop thinking about where you can go out and meet the enemy, but how you can get the enemy to waste himself on your all but invincible cheap and resourceless longbows - and I'm not just saying "sit in a city." Stop thinking "for few more hammers I could have a macemen with CR" and start thinking "I could have one more catapult/trb for every few longbows, further hurting enemies and leveraging that low-damage drill bonus against enemies." And when you're feeling the burn for a CR macemen, remember all the times you've sat there with a bunch of CR macemen and not enough defenders to keep an attack going - heavy drill longbows can perform both roles very well. They aren't perfect, and nothing is as good as a truly mixed army, but they get the job done and have strenghts that can be leveraged in almost any situation.

Anyways, no more selling my case... Check back to some of the "value of protective" debates if you want to know why people rave about the trait. It doesn't work for everyone, but it works darned well for some! And Sitting Bull has to be its biggest champion - well, him and Churchill...

 

[dragodon64]

AfterShafter, I don't want to go into a long discussion about protective. I think it is the weakest trait under most conditions, but I have certainly heard some winning strategies exploiting it (you were in one of them, I think). BUT, protective isn't a trait which favors itself in all conditions. When launching offensive war against another nation (and I know this isn't always the case) holding ground is important, but high quantities of troops simply aren't the way to do, especially when the war weariness from the above average casualties will cripple your specialist economy (this is before drama, too). Because longbows are so skilled at gaining terrain and city defenses, even a 3long1cat vs 2 long ratio is usually on the losing side. The drill line is at its best when keeping superior units damage free, so only cover promotions help much here. I am absolutely not arguing that they don't have their uses or that they aren't a great unit for someone with no resources, I'm just saying that I disagree with the impression you're giving that longbows are complete lifesavers in lieu of metal or horses or iron. And I agree with you on Churchill: if you plan on maximizing the military potential of protective Churchill can do it better than anyone else, churning out hordes of Drill IV Redcoats (which usually can benefit from the first strikes).

 

[havuoksa]

@dragodon64

Nope, I actually said: "And castles don't even stop working with Astronomy, so those inter-continental trades far away, are good, no question about that".

So i tend to keep my castles and not take Economics as far as reasonable... That's the other way to do it... Also have to mention, that there actually have been 3-4 times that the 100%defense of castles has also been worthy, although i only go for the extra trade. And once more about seafood, I would never pillage or go to war if i TRADED with that civ! Usually it's the worst enemy etc.

And the very weak point about my strategy is worth mentioning, there's been one time when all other civs went to Mercantilism, except that worst enemy, maybe on purpose, and that of course ruined me, immortal-level as it was. So IF there is somebody who's gonna try the strategy, beware!

 

[Civman33]

I'd have to say Monty, his Jaguars make short work of a nearby enemy.
As for Charlemagne, i'd say he better stay at burger king.

 

[Smartbluma]

Catherine.

1. REXing. Imp gets those settlers out quicker than ever, and Cre gets those borders pop, claiming more land faster.

2. The Cossacks aren't so hot but they have a mounted unit bonus, which makes up for it.

3. The UB is pretty good, but the two free scientists late game don't really help me with the GPP.

 

[Stoney the I]

my top 3 of the best leaders (so not always the most fun...)

Lizzy - it has all been said.

HC - it has all been said

Augustus Caesar. - I like the preaorian, but what makes Augustus strong is the ind trait with the forum(UB). Spamm some wonders and run a SE and great people pop out like crazy. I usually have my slider at 20% or so and outtech the AI on monarch with relative ease. If you have conquered the landmass early or are isolated, run pacifism for even more great ppl.
Augustus rocks.

 

[Cutlass]

I'd have to say Monty, his Jaguars make short work of a nearby enemy.
As for Charlemagne, i'd say he better stay at burger king.

There's nothing wrong with Charlie. Especially if you are going to be attacked. His UU and UB are both pretty good. The UB stays good forever and the UB works well in it's era. He starts with Mysticism which makes it easier to get an early religion.

 

[Joshua368]

There's nothing wrong with Charlie. Especially if you are going to be attacked. His UU and UB are both pretty good. The UB stays good forever and the UB works well in it's era. He starts with Mysticism which makes it easier to get an early religion.

Charlie's traits and subpar and pure military but his UB is like an economic trait all on its own.

 

[bippukt]

Charlie's traits and subpar and pure military but his UB is like an economic trait all on its own.

Charlemagne's traits are definitely not among the best, but his UU is very good IMHO - +100% against both melee and mounted units! I think that he can dominate the battlefield until the advent of much more powerful troops. As for his UB, there is nothing much that needs to be said

 

[AfterShafter]

Charlemagne's traits are definitely not among the best, but his UU is very good IMHO - +100% against both melee and mounted units! I think that he can dominate the battlefield until the advent of much more powerful troops. As for his UB, there is nothing much that needs to be said

His UU is versatile, but when you consider it, the cheaper longbowmen are on even terms with his UU on the field, and crossbowmen utterly slaughter it, and it's not nearly as good at attacking cities as either macemen or trebs. It's a powerful UU yes, but it isn't one that allows for dominance of the battlefield by any stretch - what it does is make it a lot easier to keep your stacks of primary units safe and makes a great roaming unit killer.

 

[bippukt]

His UU is versatile, but when you consider it, the cheaper longbowmen are on even terms with his UU on the field, and crossbowmen utterly slaughter it, and it's not nearly as good at attacking cities as either macemen or trebs. It's a powerful UU yes, but it isn't one that allows for dominance of the battlefield by any stretch - what it does is make it a lot easier to keep your stacks of primary units safe and makes a great roaming unit killer.

I didn't mean to say that they will let you dominate the battlefield by themselves - after all, they are melee units and they have only 6 base strength. Macemen will beat them more often because of their higher base strength. The advantage that it has against macemen are its cheaper cost and its high strength against mounted units. I am not really sure as to which is the better unit, but I would pick landsknecht.

As for longbowmen, how can they compete with them on the field? They cost 50 hammers instead of 60 and need no resources, but apart from that, what do they have over landsknechts? They make for very good city defenders (IMO the best city defence is longbow + landsknech = all bases covered ), but on the field they cannot match them, IMO.

As for trebs, you need them. I cannot imagine taking over a cultured city with walls without them. Landsknechts alone won't accomplish much (except perhaps defence when mixed with longbows), but they add the very valuable thing to your stack IMO - versatility at low cost. Feel free to correct me