[BTS] Who is the worst leader to play with?

[Master_Of_Ideas]

I feel actually like I will soon progress in a higher difficulty (Monarch -> Emperor). Now I want to give me a little exam: I want to play several games with the weakest leaders. Or maybe with bad combinations, like portugals on a land map (without UU).

I want to play on Pangaea in a bigger map.

Now, what do you think:

Who is the hardest leader or the hardest setting for Monarch difficulty?

Moderator Action: Fixed a couple of typos --NZ

 

[Ita Bear]

Hello Master of Ideas,

I think most leaders, if properly played, can be good under the right circumstances. There are a few that come to mind as being tricky though:

Tokugawa is rather awful - aggressive and protective don't combine well together and protective is pretty useless 95% of the time. Aggressive at least has value in cheaper barracks and a free promotion, allowing you access to other promotions earlier. Shale Plant is also poor.
Saladin is weak, but his resourceless UU can be useful. His spiritual trait also is nice.
Charlemagne, for me personally, takes the cake though. He is dreadful. He is protective and imperialistic, both weak traits, and his UU is atrocious. His starting techs of Mysticism and Hunting mean you'll very likely be waiting a while for any improvements to come along. His one saving grace is that imperialistic synergises well with his UB, which gives a hefty 75% maintenance discount. If you can survive the early game and get to CoL quickly, you can freely expand thanks to his Rathaus.

Kind regards,
Ita Bear

 

[Noble Zarkon]

Charlemagne, for me personally, takes the cake though. He is dreadful. He is protective and imperialistic, both weak traits

IMP is a really strong trait and the Rathaus is one of the best UBs in the game so wouldn't agree with him being on this list!

The American leaders have good traits but their UB and UU come so late it's like playing without them.

 

[Qactus]

...Who is the hardest leader or the hardest setting for Monarch difficulty?

Frankly it also depends on one's ability to leverage traits. I think for a lot of mid-level players Montezuma and Saladin would be the worst leaders. It is only the experienced players' ability to actively leverage their SPI trait (i.e. change civics and possibly religion often and with purpose in order to maximise benefits for economy, production, diplomacy, tech trades, etc) that keeps those leaders out of the usual bottom tier lists.

 

[Noble Zarkon]

Monte - Spiritual and Sacrificial Altar, very powerful combination but I can see that you need some skill to leverage it.

 

[Master_Of_Ideas]

So we could make an exam in:

- Montezuma
- Charlemagne
- Tokugawa
- Saladin
- Hammurabi
- Ghandi
- Brennus

______________

Do you know additionally some scenarios (like 18-civs) or game styles, which would make the game demanding in aspects of difficulty?

 

[PPQ_Purple]

Hello Master of Ideas,

I think most leaders, if properly played, can be good under the right circumstances. There are a few that come to mind as being tricky though:

Tokugawa is rather awful - aggressive and protective don't combine well together and protective is pretty useless 95% of the time. Aggressive at least has value in cheaper barracks and a free promotion, allowing you access to other promotions earlier. Shale Plant is also poor.
Saladin is weak, but his resourceless UU can be useful. His spiritual trait also is nice.
Charlemagne, for me personally, takes the cake though. He is dreadful. He is protective and imperialistic, both weak traits, and his UU is atrocious. His starting techs of Mysticism and Hunting mean you'll very likely be waiting a while for any improvements to come along. His one saving grace is that imperialistic synergises well with his UB, which gives a hefty 75% maintenance discount. If you can survive the early game and get to CoL quickly, you can freely expand thanks to his Rathaus.

Kind regards,
Ita Bear

Shale plant is not weak at all. It's a power plant that you can get without having coal. And that can be a huge production boost. And the flat +10% is also very powerful.

And the samurai is a good UU too.

 

[drewisfat]

Hammurabi is the worst leader. AGG/ORG are the worst traits on pangaea (not PRO). He has a garbage UU that has serious antisynergy with AGG. His UB combines coloseum and aqueduct, two buildings I almost never build by themselves. People look past all these weaknesses to praise wheel/ag starting techs. But noticeably there's no fishing and no mining, so you're SOL in a seafood start where normally you either want to rush workboats or chop forests super early. Ham is one of two leaders who starts with an AGG warrior and that's about the only good thing I can say about him. The other leader with an AGG warrior starter is Toku.

Toku doesn't deserve the hate. All the other F tier candidates have a trash UU, but Samurai are a good UU. 2.5 free first strikes + AGG. Gunpowder units after that will all start with 3 promos. PRO/AGG especially on pangaea is good for surviving early DoWs and breaking out early. PRO is great if you're semi-isolated with a warmonger, or just someone who can DoW at pleased. AGG is great for barbs (isolated/semi-isolated). Fishing starter is great insurance for the worst starts. Shale is good insurance for games that go late. Lastly if you're semi-isolated, your neighbor can't be Toku. Toku is all about consistency.

 

[BornInCantaloup]

For your playstyle, Master of Ideas, I would rule out any civ that gives you access to AGG warriors or PRO archers, for that would be too unfair to your neighbours.
I would also rule out a CRE leader, because border pops are cheats. And I would rule out a FIN leader, because cottages need to mature in pain and time.

I think Gandhi would suit you best. PHI/SPI is known to be a rather poor selection of traits for the early warmonger and are difficult to leverage later on. I think it is generally agreed that Gandhi is one of the weaker warmongers of them all.
His saving grace is the Fast Worker. Sure, you won't capture cities with that 3-moves unit but (but !) it can chop forests on flatland without wasting a turn, which can help ensure a steady flow of Axemen converge towards your ennemies.

To make up for the poor character selection, I would indulge in a Pangaea map, so that danger or possible targets could arise from all sides.

Greetings, have fun !

 

[jnebbe]

Any civ that starts with hunting

In all seriousness for me it might be Monty or Brennus. Both have the absolute worst starting tech combo of hunting+mysticism, both have an extremely niche/borderline useless UU, and traits I don't like. I know this is really unpopular but I think SPI is extremely mid tier due to having zero benefit on early game expansion/economy (outside of saving a turn when going into slavery and maybe OR which I never go for anyway) AGG/CHA can be nice but not great without an eco trait.

I have to say though I remember I had a funny start with Monty where starting techs and starting land were so out of sync I went settler first and then built a worker from both cities which was a fun start.

 

[Master_Of_Ideas]

For your playstyle, Master of Ideas, I would rule out any civ that gives you access to AGG warriors or PRO archers, for that would be too unfair to your neighbours.
I would also rule out a CRE leader, because border pops are cheats. And I would rule out a FIN leader, because cottages need to mature in pain and time.

I think Gandhi would suit you best. PHI/SPI is known to be a rather poor selection of traits for the early warmonger and are difficult to leverage later on. I think it is generally agreed that Gandhi is one of the weaker warmongers of them all.
His saving grace is the Fast Worker. Sure, you won't capture cities with that 3-moves unit but (but !) it can chop forests on flatland without wasting a turn, which can help ensure a steady flow of Axemen converge towards your ennemies.

To make up for the poor character selection, I would indulge in a Pangaea map, so that danger or possible targets could arise from all sides.

Greetings, have fun !

Haha, that sounds really interesting. Thank you.

Honestly I tried to avoid philosophical leaders, because I don't really know how to play them accordingly. We will see in the exam
I will document it here and I would appreciate your feedback. India is a quite strange civ.

 

[Master_Of_Ideas]

Any civ that starts with hunting

In all seriousness for me it might be Monty or Brennus. Both have the absolute worst starting tech combo of hunting+mysticism, both have an extremely niche/borderline useless UU, and traits I don't like. I know this is really unpopular but I think SPI is extremely mid tier due to having zero benefit on early game expansion/economy (outside of saving a turn when going into slavery and maybe OR which I never go for anyway) AGG/CHA can be nice but not great without an eco trait.

I have to say though I remember I had a funny start with Monty where starting techs and starting land were so out of sync I went settler first and then built a worker from both cities which was a fun start.

Thanks!
I added them.

 

[BornInCantaloup]

Haha, that sounds really interesting. Thank you.

My post was tongue-in-cheek in some ways but also serious in some others. I'm glad you figured it out.
I'll be sure to check in if you get to it.

Gandhi is close to an S-Class character but he doesn't have any passive bonuses. You've got to make them work for you (and this doesn't include founding Buddhism ; just PHI and Civics and the Best Workers In The Game (BWITG)).