Worst 5 leaders and why

[NuWorld]

I'll take that. Emperor/standard/marathon is ok? Mirror & landmass type random? Victory conditions all checked?

 

[niedzialko]

Because multi in civ4 make sense when there are ony two civ.
When there are more, it is two vs one.

Currently I have not direct access to internet because I am moving to my own new flat (at least). I play only by LAN
When I finish I can play with You.
But I prefer setting like this (map small, small lakes, normal game speed)

 

[NuWorld]

Aaaah, I wasn't aware that you were talking about MP games. Never play those, don't like rushing games very much. As per settings you proposed, you would like me to play as Isabela while you play Catherine and having an edge in a small all-land map where starting techs suits you so you can nail me with an early axemen rush? What does that have to do with leaders/traits or am I missing something? I'll pick Mansa instead

 

[Kushluk]

With Louis you can set up a very efficient wonder factory in those 3 legendary cities, so he's def not one of the worst.

 

[Pbhead]

my ideas: FDR sucked in real life, and he sucks in civ IV also.

he disobeyed my other sig i use, to no end. may sound familiar

"any socity that sacrifices a bit of freedom to gain a bit of security will deserve neither and lose both"(or something like that, too lazy/busy to check right now) -ben franklen

in short, i really really really hate him and every freaken government program that he made. i hate most, if not all, government programs anyway...

 

[Napoliean]

It's one thing to hear about the "best" leaders (e.g., catherine), but it's another to get a sense of what people think about the "worst" leaders.

List your top 5 worst leaders and why

Isabella
Peter
Louis
Roosevelt
Saladin, Mao, or Frederick

I'm new though so I don't have a great perspective on things yet. I'm also not sure how I would order these ones.

I look forward to reading peoples' thoughts on this.

You put Saladin on that list? he is one of the greatest leaders of all time, he recaptured Jerusalem and defeated the Christians back to a few miles of scrap land.

 

[Napoliean]

My bad you mean in the game. lol

 

[acidsatyr]

Actually in my gamaes Saladin, Mao and Frederick can really be a problem if left untreated.

 

[aelf]

Actually in my gamaes Saladin, Mao and Frederick can really be a problem if left untreated.

Yes, they are actually a big problem when the AI plays them. Frederick is not so bad, but generally the AI seems to be really good at using Philosophical - those golden ages they get. This makes Peter very dangerous too, not mention Liz.

Mao might be the worst because the AI plays Organized very well too. In my current game he settled half his continent (all the cities had Chinese names) early on and of course went on to take the lead for most of the game. It's the 19th century now and I only just surpassed his land area in the past century or so, after fighting so many wars and capturing so many cities on my continent. And he's out-teching me by quite a lot. I think it might be too late to catch up.... I need advice on how to win this

 

[Aegis]

Aelf, I think a slash-and-burn raiding policy towards Mao would help. You do not have to occupy his land, however you can attack and raze a few cities and that will slow him down immensely. Losing 10-40 suicide troops who journey to China to pillage and raze cities are well worth sacrificing if they take out enough cities and cottages. Take out only the coastal cities, if you have to. If he has more advanced troops than you do, then bring the equalizing catapults. If you have flight, use bombers to your advantage.

 

[aelf]

Have you seen the game? This guy probably has tanks while I am still totting cavalry guns around on my continent. I am still researching Assembly Line while he is probably going for Plastics right now. If we just entered the Industrial Age I wouldn't be worried because I have the whole continent under control now and have time to catch up. But this late in the game this definitely sucks.

 

[Domaniac]

I don't know why people hate Mao so much. I played my best game with him, and normally I play with good ole Queen Vicky and build a cultural empire on which the sun never sets, and all that.

Personally, I think Washington and FDR suck. I played as FDR for 11 turns and got destroyed by barbarians. Perhaps it was my fault but having a country full of Americans can't help, of that I'm sure!

I also think Gandhi is a bit pathetic unless you're going for the whole spiritual thing or you're doing the one city challenge, and I always seem to end up conquering Hatshepshut.

So in conclusion, my personal worst leaders are the Americans, the Indians, Japan and Egypt - and the best are Victoria, Mao, Napoleon and Peter - in my humble estimation, at least.

 

[aelf]

Mao should be good with high populations. Expand asap (Organised would help) and dedicate a GP farm or two with as high many specialists as possible and you shoud be doing well. That's how the AI plays him anyway.

 

[Oggums]

Didn't you know it's possible to win a game as Russia without building a single Cossack, or as Rome without building 10,000 praetorians?

Yes, but that's like chopping of your arm to save a finger. They should just balance the UU's instead.

 

[Watiggi]

...and the traits for that matter.

 

[uberfish]

Mao might be the worst because the AI plays Organized very well too. In my current game he settled half his continent (all the cities had Chinese names) early on and of course went on to take the lead for most of the game. It's the 19th century now and I only just surpassed his land area in the past century or so, after fighting so many wars and capturing so many cities on my continent. And he's out-teching me by quite a lot. I think it might be too late to catch up.... I need advice on how to win this

This game looks won. I would do this:

Revolt to representation ASAP and stay there, since you're running a farm/specialist economy. This will increase science a lot. Consider caste system too since some cities running useless artists. (Towns are stronger at this stage but it is too late to switch.) Spec a few cities out for production fully with workshops and watermills.

Research radio and computers. Trade for Genghis' spices and open borders. Hopefully trade 2 techs for 1 to Saladin for assembly line and get factories and labs up everywhere. Then beeline to rocketry and get Apollo up. Trade Mao's aluminium temporarily if unable to acquire industrialism in trade yet. Try for robotics and space elevator, but even if you miss it your size advantage and superior city management should win you the race in the end. Space elevator is more to deny Mao than anything.

Make sure to send a few spies to Mao's land to be ready to sabotage in the end if it looks like it's still going to be a close thing.

 

[aelf]

This game looks won. I would do this:

Revolt to representation ASAP and stay there, since you're running a farm/specialist economy. This will increase science a lot. Consider caste system too since some cities running useless artists. (Towns are stronger at this stage but it is too late to switch.) Spec a few cities out for production fully with workshops and watermills.

Research radio and computers. Trade for Genghis' spices and open borders. Hopefully trade 2 techs for 1 to Saladin for assembly line and get factories and labs up everywhere. Then beeline to rocketry and get Apollo up. Trade Mao's aluminium temporarily if unable to acquire industrialism in trade yet. Try for robotics and space elevator, but even if you miss it your size advantage and superior city management should win you the race in the end. Space elevator is more to deny Mao than anything.

Make sure to send a few spies to Mao's land to be ready to sabotage in the end if it looks like it's still going to be a close thing.

Thanks for the advice. I'll give it a try. But don't you think I have more than enough towns to merit US? Why would +3 beakers per specialist matter at this point in the game?

Oh, yes, the artists. The computer assigns them for me. I was too lazy to micro so many cities

 

[aelf]

I won the game. A 1892 diplomatic victory. I followed your advice for the most part, but Mao's tech lead was seriously bad. He beat me to both Three Gorges and Space Elevator before I could even begin. Even with Representation really powering up my research (didn't realise I had so many specialists working) combined with Statue of Liberty, I couldn't catch up quickly enough.

In the end his mistake was converting to Free Religion and building the UN. I had 2 GEs which I was reserving for golden ages, but I didn't need to use them for the UN. So he thought communism could dominate the world, eh? I converted to Confucianism and Police State to buy favour with both Saladin and Genghis. They voted a victory for me.

And Representation was

 

[juggerxnaut]

I don't know why people hate Mao so much. I played my best game with him, and normally I play with good ole Queen Vicky and build a cultural empire on which the sun never sets, and all that.

Personally, I think Washington and FDR suck. I played as FDR for 11 turns and got destroyed by barbarians. Perhaps it was my fault but having a country full of Americans can't help, of that I'm sure!

I also think Gandhi is a bit pathetic unless you're going for the whole spiritual thing or you're doing the one city challenge, and I always seem to end up conquering Hatshepshut.

So in conclusion, my personal worst leaders are the Americans, the Indians, Japan and Egypt - and the best are Victoria, Mao, Napoleon and Peter - in my humble estimation, at least.

that depends on what gametype you are playing.
htshepshut,the 2 khan r best military leaders
gandhi is the Farmer King,i mean he is absolute the best one with respect of peaceful developing .
washington and mao is worst both on military aspect and developing aspect.
i rarely see anyone ,who is always proved to be a noob,choose them.in that case,i usually type on screen:u r gg now,wait 2 die.

 

[Gherald]

Yes, but that's like chopping of your arm to save a finger.

Not even close.