Who's the most versatile leader?

[Still_Asleep]

Incas:

You can start a war by turn 5 with your first quechua WHILE producing more of them to completely rush your first opponent in sight WHILE discovering hinduism with mysticism as starter.

Afterwards you are financial and aggressive - in fact I have achieved every victorytype with Huayna Capac on Emporer I believe.

 

[acidsatyr]

actually i'm not sure what you mean by flexible.
Financial trait is not flexible at all, thus all financial civs are not very flexible, while all spiritual civs are more flxible than non-spritual ones.

 

[Gherald]

Teching faster offers considerable flexibility.

 

[Tee Kay]

Oops! I voted Aztecs by mistake.
Personally I think Arabia or China.

 

[malekithe]

I went with HC of the Inca. While neither of his traits are terribly flexible in and of themselves (unlike spiritual or philosophical), with both together he can do better than average at both warmonger and builder strategies. I understand the votes for Catherine. Starting with mining can lead to some quick axe rushes and creative is a benefit to most victory stategies, but HC has her beat in two key areas: Ready access to religion and classical-though-middle-age warfare (maybe even ancient, but it's hard to look past Cathy's fast axemen).

Saladin also seems like a good choice, but I think he weighs in a bit too light on the warmonger side. He can be effective, but doesn't really ever wage war better than most other leaders would. Ghandi runs into problems, I believe, in post-axeman warmongering, empire maintenance, and end-game research ability. Mansa-Musa is quite-possibly the single best builder available (which can be easily translated into late game warmongering) but I don't think he has what it takes to be an efficient early game warmonger. Washington has similar problems but, I believe, is a bit better at handling mid-game empire building.

 

[Gherald]

creative is a benefit to most victory stategies

Excuse me? Creative is an just an early advantage trait. When considering diverse victory strategies, it's probably the last trait I'd choose.

Ready access to religion and classical-though-middle-age warfare
(maybe even ancient, but it's hard to look past Cathy's fast axemen)

Have you SEEN what people can do with Quechuas? HC is arguably the greatest ancient warmonger. Starting with mining is hardly important, bronze can easily be researched by the time you should have a worker ready. You're best off with an early religion; who needs Cre when your capital already has +7 culture?

Saladin also seems like a good choice

I play Saladin quite often. He is very good for some things, very not good for others (notably early warmongering). I would most definitely not categorize him as a versatile leader.

 

[pigswill]

Probably I'd go for Mansa Musa in terms of versatility. Financial helps with tech which is good for anything. Spiritual gives a lot of flexibility in terms of civics. MM may not be the best war leader but has the best all round traits and a good early defensive UU to get established.

 

[malekithe]

Excuse me? Creative is an just an early advantage trait. When considering diverse victory strategies, it's probably the last trait I'd choose..

If I had to decide whether I wanted an early game benefit or a late game benefit, I'd choose the early game every time (given the two benefits were comparable). Is it a big benefit? No. But, the early culture has advantages that non-creative leaders have a harder time getting. Also, cheaper theaters are underrated by many; as is the ability to easily consolidate conquered territory. Plus, Cathy has Cossacks. Those, combined with a quick tech pace, allow any game to turn into a domination game. In the end, though, creative is the reason I thought HC was better. Almost any other trait and I'd rank her higher than HC.

Have you SEEN what people can do with Quechuas? HC is arguably the greatest ancient warmonger. Starting with mining is hardly important, bronze can easily be researched by the time you should have a worker ready. You're best off with an early religion; who needs Cre when your capital already has +7 culture?.

Yes, I've used quechuas to great effect under the right conditions; taking out one opponent and crippling a second on emperor. But, there are more scenarios at higher difficulties where I'd much rather have access to axemen faster. You have to commit to a quechua rush before you know if it's going to be successful. A rush to axeman, in addition to having a much higher probability of success, leaves you in a much better situation. In my opinion, you really haven't sacrificed anything if you find yourself without copper or unable to reach an opponent. BW is even useful if you were doing a quechua rush, as it allows you to deprive your opponent of copper. Afterall, one axeman for your opponent and your chance of success plummets.

Don't bother attempting to compare creative to +5 culture from founding a religion in your capital. Creative is never a benefit to your capital; with or without religion. Also, why bother with religion when you can go straight to axes and take your neighbor's? I think you play a very different style of game from me. I almost never bother with religion, especially the early ones. Given access to bronze, an early axe rush is, in my opinion, often the single best way to ensure a successful game. On higher difficulties I get beaten to religions 4 out of 5 times anyway.

I play Saladin quite often. He is very good for some things, very not good for others (notably early warmongering). I would most definitely not categorize him as a versatile leader.

I think you are underrating spiritual's ability to quickly change gears when the game calls for a little agression and then fall back into builder mode seemlessly. Spiritual gives you the flexibility, when warmongering (especially in MP, I'm told), to run a non-cottage based economy very effectively. Without the dependence on cottages you a) are less susceptible to pillaging and b) can quickly get newly acquired territory up and running.

 

[Gherald]

I think you are underrating spiritual's ability to quickly change gears when the game calls for a little agression and then fall back into builder mode seemlessly.

I'm not. As I said, I play Saladin often. More than half my games as of late.

The trouble is, you almost need to reach the classical era for spiritual to be relevant. The other Spis are much sturdier early on, because they have a more immediately useful second trait or UU.

Spiritual gives you the flexibility, when warmongering (especially in MP, I'm told), to run a non-cottage based economy very effectively. Without the dependence on cottages you a) are less susceptible to pillaging and b) can quickly get newly acquired territory up and running.

Actually, being spiritual has absolutely nothing to do with cottages. As in zero, zilch, nada.

 

[malekithe]

Actually, being spiritual has absolutely nothing to do with cottages. As in zero, zilch, nada.

Whoops, meant philosophical...

I see your point about early warmongering with Saladin. But, in my opinion, that's his only real flaw. It's a big flaw, and what keeps him from being as versatile as HC or a couple others.

 

[Older than Dirt]

I can but echo what Cam H has so masterfully stated. Gandhi's industrialism and spiritualism when combined with Fast Workers makes for many strategic options. With his attributes it is easy to switch strategies mid game (except maybe for cultural victory). It is really hard to lose when playing as him.

 

[bru]

Being more of a builder I have had most wins with Candhi.

 

[JungleIII]

It's got to be that cute pony-tailed swishing gal from Russia!!!

You can't beat not having to waste time building anything cultural to keep your borders expanding.
You can't beat the extra gold with Financial trait and building that money up as you conquor your friends and enemies...
You can't beat that UU.... How can anyone stand up to a Cossack of 18hp when the nearest equal competitor is 15 - Cavalry. It is killer.

Strategy... go conquest with this gal as soon as you've beelined for your UU trigger. Drop everything and make 20 of the Cossacks and take out your most vulnerable opponents. You can then keep going for Domination or Conquest victory (with a few catapults along), or stop after eliminating the smart or culturally significant opponents and then building for any of the other victories while holding 50% of the board to build on...

Try it - you'll like it!

Cheers... ...JungleIII

 

[Marmoset]

I went with the Russians. I've only started playing as Catherine recently, and so far I'm finding I've been able to take several different approaches and have some success; plus, in the current game I've been able to overcome a lack of several resources on my large continent due to plain bad luck.

If the question was who was the BEST, I'd say Huayna Capac and the Incas, but I think with the Incas I tend to play a fairly similar game involving smashing the oppponents to bits while piling up the gold. The creative trait of Catherine has made it easier for me to try some different tactics, such as crowding out my neighbours because of superior cultural boundaries, while still being able to fight a war, be decent financially, etc. Another thing is the UU for the Russians works much better for me than the Quechas (I know people like them, but it's too early for me). Due to that, I'd say the Russians are most flexible.

 

[Underdawg]

As in the leader who is most capable of achieving every kind of victory, and executing multiple strategies to do so.


I'm going with Saladin.

-Diplomatic: He starts with Mysticism so early religeons are a possiblity allowing him to leverage them to create diplomatic blocs. Plus he is spiritual so he can easily acceed to demands to convert his religeon or switch civics then switch back in 5 turns with no anarchy.

- Cultural: Philosophical allows him to crank out Great Artists and Spiritual gives him cheap temples, for getting Cathedrals built. Plus Spiritual allows you to switch civics on a dime if you get sneak attacked, useful for the cultural endgame for a quick switch to Nationhood.

- Military: Great People can give you access to some nice military techs through lightbulbing, Great Prophets are particularly good for this, giving you Theology for elite units, then Civil Service which is half the prereq for Macemen. And Spiritual allows you to consolidate that much faster between wars becuase you can quickly put yourself on war or peace footing. Plus with Camel Archers you're always guarenteed a Knight unit despite your resources.

- Space Race:He really doesn't have anything specifically to help him out here, but I'd argue this victory condition has less to do with what civilization you're running and how you've set yourself up throughout the game. Any leader if they've managed to set up a powerful empire with good infrastructre has a shot. At this point it's less about your traits, and more about how you've leveraged them earlier on to get a powerful late game empire.



So who's your choice? Make a case for em.

The polls here only have 20 options max, so I'll just sort the leaders by Empire.

Thanks for typing for me.

 

[Gherald]

You can't beat that UU.... How can anyone stand up to a Cossack of 18hp when the nearest equal competitor is 15 - Cavalry. It is killer.

That's so wrong. All units have 100hp. Cossacks have 18 strength to the cavalry's 15. But in addition, Cossacks get 50% vs. all mounted units. So cavalry get slaughtered by Cossacks wholesale... it takes about 3 to kill one.

If you promote Cossacks with pinch, they even beat riflemen and redcoats.

Strategy... go conquest with this gal as soon as you've beelined for your UU trigger. Drop everything and make 20 of the Cossacks and take out your most vulnerable opponents. You can then keep going for Domination or Conquest victory (with a few catapults along), or stop after eliminating the smart or culturally significant opponents and then building for any of the other victories while holding 50% of the board to build on...

Try it - you'll like it!

Boring, boring, boring. Whenever I get stuck with Russia I don't build any Cossacks. They are pointless -- the only interesting use I've seen is in the no science game.

 

[Lance of Llanwy]

Huayna, definitely. Strong in war, whenever you want(not just when you discover Coss- err..Cavalry!), but especially capable in strangling an unlucky rival at the get-go. Tech isn't a problem, you can cottage spam away and take advantage of financial. Diplomacy? Found a religion and spread it the world over, and have plenty of trading buddies. And shrines are so beautifully synergistic with cottage spam....if anything, he can do too much for his own good...

 

[theimmortal1]

Im actually going to say Qin is the best leader now.


I think China has the best UU. Theres no real counter, its real strong for its era. And its early on. The cossack and redcoat are stronger for its era as a UU. But the problem is once I hit that era, I already have won the game. I could do the same war of consquest with Calvary, Rifles, Muskets, etc. I don't need a UU at that point. Cho Ko's come early enough, especially if you can pull off a Machinery slingshot.

Plus his traits are my two favorite. Industrious and Financial. Get stonehenge with your industrious trait and you quickly become Industrious, Financial and Creative.

 

[Ball Lightning]

Hayen Capac is definitely the best civ. With your warriors with +100% verses archers, this is the best for early domination.

 

[acidsatyr]

a) HC is not a civ
b) there is no best civ