Who is the WORST Civ Leader? [POLL]

[nate46]

No, just plain old correct, I think.

my point is that its the amount of defensive bonuses that determines what kind of promotions are stronger, not the relative base strengths...

for example:

If an archer in a city has over +100% total defensive bonuses, then attacking with combat I will give better odds than attacking with city raider I --assuming no other attack bonuses.

This is true whether you're attacking with a warrior or a maceman. (but it's not true with Quechas, since they have +100% vs archers, which cancels out the archer's defensive bonuses).

 

[Izuul]

What usually matters is the base strength of the attacking unit vs the base strength of the defender. If you manage to get maces vs archers, 10% increased base strength with Combat 1 on an 8str unit is probably better than -25% base strength on a 3 strength archer with CR1.

It's really rare to get that kind of strength advantage though, which is why CR beats Combat for attacking cities the vast majority of the time.

 

[nate46]

What usually matters is the base strength of the attacking unit vs the base strength of the defender.

No, 25% is 25%. Base strength isn't the issue, since its all proportional.

(3 / 1.25) / 8 = 3 / (8 * 1.25).

What makes combat better sometimes vs archers sometimes is the stupid amounts of defensive bonuses archers get...

If you manage to get maces vs archers, 10% increased base strength with Combat 1 on an 8str unit is probably better than -25% base strength on a 3 strength archer with CR1.

It's really rare to get that kind of strength advantage though, which is why CR beats Combat for attacking cities the vast majority of the time.

Whats rare is attacking a city where you have both lower base strength and over 100% less in bonuses without having <0.1% combat odds. But if you did this, you'd still find that CR 1 is worse than combat...

also, CR 1 is 20%, not 25%.

 

[nate46]

Here, simple test:

Spoiler :

Combat is worse than CR I when the defensive bonuses are <100%, but better when the defensive bonuses are >100%.... assuming no other offensive bonuses... if there are any others, this subtracts from the defensive bonuses...

... and if you have more offensive bonuses than the archer has defensive bonuses, your offensive bonuses get split in two and effectively multiplied with its other part ... part 1 eliminates the archer's defensive bonuses, part 2 multiplies with the result of this... so it effectively multiplies... ... this is why trebs are so powerful, not their low base strength.... you can get this same effect on samurais (or any unit) with CR III, vs anything with less than 75% defensive bonuses.

 

[elitetroops]

Combat is worse than CR I when the defensive bonuses are <100%, but better when the defensive bonuses are >100%.... assuming no other offensive bonuses...

That's an interesting way to look at it. And I think you are right to some degree.

All combat calculations are proportional. At 100% defensive bonuses, a C1 promo increases attacker strength by 10% while a CR1 promo decreases defender strength by 10% (from 2*base strength to 1.8*base strength). Note that this does not mean that they are absolutely equal. 1.1x/2y &#8800; x/1.8y.

If you go far above 100% defensive bonus, like in your example, the CR promo might reduce defender strength by way less than 10%. About 5% in your example. In that case increasing your own strength by 10% is better.

 

[Izuul]

*shrug* Anytime I'm playing an important game (which is pretty much never these days), i just calculate the ratio.

100% archer vs mace. If i throw combat 1 on my mace it's 6 str archer vs 8.8 str mace. 8.8/6 = 1.47 in favor of the mace. If i go with CR it's a 75% 80% archer (5.25 5.40 str) vs 8 str mace. 8/5.25 = 1.52 8/5.4 = 1.48 in favor of the mace. CR I is slightly better.

I don't know how this gets translated to combat odds, but the relative strength ratios always worked for me when testing during SGOTMs.

And FWIW, i just made a little table in excel, and unless i did something wrong, 175% defensive bonus for the archer was the point where Combat and CR I were perfectly even. CR was better up until that point, and Combat is better at anything beyond 175%.

OK, NM. I was just looking at the columns wrong for the sword. I've got 175% as the breakeven point again so it's exactly the same. That actually makes perfect sense because at 150% the archer is 2.5x. At that point 25% is exactly a 10% increase/decrease which makes it's perfectly equal to the Combat 1 promo.

Good to know.

also, CR 1 is 20%, not 25%.

Edit: Ugh, I forgot CR I was 20%. The breakeven point is 120%, not 175%.

I need to go do something else for awhile, lol.

 

[MyOtherName]

The game doesn't multiply any bonus by another bonus.

+35% defensive bonus means the defender's strength is multiplied by 1.35.

-40% defensive bonus means the defender's strength is divided by 1.4.

If the defender has a +35% bonus, the effect of taking three city raider promotions is that you replace a 1.35 multiplier with a 1/1.4 multiplier. That is numerically equivalent to starting with the 1.35 bonus, and then dividing by 1.4*1.35.

It is, IMO, an odd way of describing it, but it is correct, and the math is there in the post, if obscured.

 

[MegaLurker]

my point is that its the amount of defensive bonuses that determines what kind of promotions are stronger, not the relative base strengths...

for example:

If an archer in a city has over +100% total defensive bonuses, then attacking with combat I will give better odds than attacking with city raider I --assuming no other attack bonuses.

This is true whether you're attacking with a warrior or a maceman. (but it's not true with Quechas, since they have +100% vs archers, which cancels out the archer's defensive bonuses).

I tested this for myself, and you're right about the sort of 'hidden' effect of very large bonuses.

I don't think it has much of an effect on the game, though. If you're attacking a defender with over 100% bonuses and you have significantly less than that you only get decent odds if you're at least twice the defender's base strength. In that case you would almost always be going with Combat anyway, whether you understand this quirk or not.

With units anywhere close to the same base strength in this situation the difference between Combat and CRI exists, but is going to be so low it doesn't affect outcomes. In my test with spears and axes the difference was about 0.5% vs 0.7%.

It is counter-intuitive but knowing that doesn't change strategy at all. You either need 2x or more defender's base strength (HAs vs archers, Cuirs vs. LBs), or you need a bunch of siege. If you're using siege you probably still want to promote melee units down the CR line because they'll get enough XP at very high odds to get to CRIII. Catapults can't take Combat promos so it doesn't help there. At best knowing this might prevent you from giving your mounted units Cover/pinch/shock promos in certain circumstances...increasing your odds by an insignificant amount.

this is why trebs are so powerful, not their low base strength...

Nobody ever thought Trebs are so good because of low base strength.

 

[SnipedSoul]

I had to say Toku because charismatic is too good for Boudica or Churchill to be worst. Same goes with spiritual and Saladin.

Charlie at least has a few options on how to play him. You can build the great wall and fight a defensive war for extreme GG production and then conquer everyone with insanely promoted units. You can also leverage imperialistic and his UB to get a massive empire with enough land to hopefully make up for his poor economic traits.

Toku has nothing really going for him. Starting techs are meh, traits don't synergize at all until gunpowder, UB is too late to make much of a difference, and his UU is also late enough that you can't really leverage it before you've fallen far behind.

Speaking of gunpowder units, that is another bonus for Churchill. Vassalage, theocracy, and a couple settled GGs makes for unstoppable rifles and infantry.

 

[MrGrandiose]

Toku is clearly hard mode...

 

[diegobueno]

im a scrub that plays on monarch at the moment so...here are my thoughts;
they don't have any economic advantages over the others leaders, but they aren't that bad.

Boudicca: +happiness/bigger cities early, relatively stronger troops (if they survive)(?)
-bad starting techs, not impresive uu/ub

Saladin: +no anarchy, cheaper temples, early religion? - the wheel (1/2)
-not impresive uu/ub, usefull some times but meh...

Churchill: +same as boudicca, Redcoat/Stockexchange nice, - mining (1/2)
- fishing is neutral, you depend on either sea resources or lakes

Charlemagne: +fast settler/great general, Rathaus amazing building reduces maintenance even on corporations
-bad uu, bad starting techs

Tokugawa: +shale plant, better gunpowder units, you can go pottery at the start -the wheel (1/2)
-uu looks good but its not impresive, agg/pro

charlemagne should be org...

 

[Fippy]

Imo it's funny that hunting would be the best starting tech with goodie huts on
But even without it's sometimes nice to start with hunting, every time you need AH first and have no Agri. I would easily want it instead of wheel i.e. in those games.

 

[elitetroops]

Imo it's funny that hunting would be the best starting tech with goodie huts on

Depends on difficulty level. Below emperor, when the AI doesn't automatically start with scouts, it can be a big advantage to have one. Especially on large maps. On tight deity map a scout isn't likely to yield you that many huts.

 

[Bandobras Took]

Game speed also makes a large difference in the value of scouts. The quicker the game, the more vital having two moves is.

 

[Kevinli]

Definitely Qin, the combination of the worst two characters under deity level.


&#20174;&#25105;&#30340; iPhone &#21457;&#36865;&#65292;&#20351;&#29992; Tapatalk

 

[gaash2]

I voted Churchill only because I see zero reason to ever play him when you have two very strong England leaders, but yea, Toku is probably the worst.

 

[diegobueno]

I voted Churchill only because I see zero reason to ever play him when you have two very strong England leaders, but yea, Toku is probably the worst.

a drafted redcoat cg1-dr1 plus -25% exp to promote is very strong, you can promote them to pinch (+50% vs gunpowder units) fast, take cities and defend what you take.
im sure charly is the weakest of the bunch only for the starting techs, and also he techs on slomotion omg.