Worst 5 leaders and why

[futurehermit]

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.

 

[Sparta]

Brace yourself, because you're going to get disagreement, and how . It is an interesting question, though. Personally, I haven't had a chance to play that many leaders yet (I play random, but large/epic games that take forever, and therefore have only played a handful of leaders thus far), but I personally was not a fan of Saladin either. Camel archers are just not much of an improvement if you have the resources necessary for knights anyway, and I personally don't find a lot of use for spiritual in most circumstances. As mentioned though, opinions on a topic like this could vary wildly from player to player.

 

[Dusty4prez]

Actually I agree with him >.>

 

[aelf]

I disagree with all of them. I can think of how each of them can suit different playstyles. I used to think Alex had like the worst combination (sad since I loved Greece in Civ3), but now I am best with him. If they don't suit you don't play them, but doesn't mean they suck.

I can even see why a person would play Frederick.

 

[Mutineer]

Just list all finantiaa leaders. I play rundom and hate to play as finantial. Finantial trat is very week and was made even worce in Patch.

 

[DementedAvenger]

I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not, mutineer.

Peter is actually a pretty good leader if you ask me. He's best for a specialist strategy (more heatlh = more food = more specialists, and he's philosophical), and the cossacks speak for themselves.

I think Hatty is worse than Peter.

 

[Mutineer]

NO, I have not been sarcastic. I started with Playing Catherina, because I am Russian when I just strat learning game, gradially I shifted to plaing rundom leaders and found out that game have some mach better early way to bust yourself up then to use finanntial trait. So, I bacome to hate it, because in order to use it you are forced to fix yourself in unmoving, low food excess state that mach hurt you early on then help.

When you finally really can use it, it actial benefit become relativelly small.
That in order to play any starting position game trow your way, not cherry pick most sutable for finantial one.

 

[futurehermit]

I know that all leaders have their place, but what I'm asking is that if you *had* to pick the 5 worst, which would they be?

 

[Overcast32]

You mean overalll or leaders I have actually played?

As far as the AI goes, the weakest always seem to be:

Isabella
Louis
Peter

I've seen Frederick and Mao both have huge empires.. Of course, in both cases they were isolated on islands... I'm sure that had a significant amount of influence there.

As far as the one's I've personally played..

I tried Peter a few times, but just don't click with that Civ. Can't seem to get anywhere playing him

I tried playing Napoleon too, and couldn't get too far with him either. But that just might amount to a play style issue.

I haven't yet played all the Civs either tho

 

[Crighton]

Monty & Salidin - nerfed by their UU's, not that great in general
Hyuana - gets nerfed by his UU too but he isn't as bad as the others in general

Those three in general just seem to embrace the suck every game. I've never seen Sal doing anything substantial.

 

[chris8b]

I'm just stunned someone is arguing that finacial is the worst trait.

Granted the AI doesn't optimize use of the trait, but it is simply phenomenol for players of almost every strategy.

Worst leaders for players? Monty, Frederick, Louis perhaps.

 

[aelf]

Ah. Sorry for misunderstanding. Anyway, I wasn't trying to moralise that much. It's really my opinion. But if someone is terribly affected by UU choice then some leaders obviously will not be their preference.

Personally, I prefer early UUs (not as early as Quechua, though) so that would slightly put me off playing anyone with something later than Samurai, with the exception of Cossacks. Of course, Jaguars are hopeless. And yet I've played Americans and Germans and don't hate them, so I guess I'm really undecided about who are the worst for me.

I dislike Monty and Mao due to my impressions of them from reading history. Lol. I hate the game's colour for Malinese. Do these count?

By the way, I've seen AI Saladin and Louis become world power in a number of games. So I guess it's pretty open?

 

[Callixto]

I like early UU's too, especially Praetorians, and Jaguars. Aelf, you're right that they are underpowered, but if I beeline to Iron Working from the beginning I can rush 6-8 Jaguars and send my next door neighbor to an early flowery death. No need to track down iron right away.

Rather than site specific worst leaders, for me, any leader with the Organized trait I tend to avoid. That trait just seems weak with my approach to the game. Maybe someone can cite a highly informed reason why I should love to be Organized, and I'll change my ways.

For me, Aggressive-Creative probably works the best. For the warmonger in me, I can flip enemy territory at a high clip. For an isolationist approach, I can carve out a large territory of my own early on, and then keep it well fortified.

 

[InFlux5]

In order, beginning with the worst:

Isabella
Bismarck
Roosevelt
Louis XIV
Frederick


I don't think you can say a civ sucks just based on one of its traits. What makes a civ good or bad is the synergy (or lack thereof) between both of its traits and its UU.

Isabella: Conquistadores can be fun, but don't make up for Isabella's mis-matched traits and starting techs.

Bismarck: Starting techs are good; but the late UU only rarely makes a difference, and his traits don't have much synergy.

Roosevelt: Similar to Bismarck, but with an even later UU. The organized trait balances things out a bit, so I'd say Bismarck and Roosevelt are about tied.

Louis and Frederick: I do have a soft spot for Louis and Frederick, and I like the creative trait, but on the whole these civs are mediocre; in both cases their traits lack synergy. Moreover, Louis has a mediocre UU while Frederick's will only occasionally be a factor (see above.)


As for the other proposals, here's my take:

Napoleon: his traits work well for creating elite armies in mid/late-game, though the Musketeer is mediocre.

Peter: good synergy between his traits for creating lots of GP, and an awesome UU.

Hatshepsut: unrivalled when it comes to cultural dominance, very fast early expansion.

 

[floppymoose]

I fould Louis' traits to be synergistic. Creative gets you quick coverage of resource squares without having to place you starting cities in bad locations. This also means you can totally skip pursuing early religion techs and do without them until you have alphabet and can trade for them, since you don't need the temple for early culture. And industrious means that the early resource covereage gets leveraged into early wonder domination, which means GP domination from the get go, which in turn means any other kind of domination you want: science, money, culture, production.

Of course, this only works if you have Stone/Marble/Copper around, otherwise you may not hit every early wonder you want. But if you do then no one can capitalize on that advantage like Louis.

 

[Villabongo]

WORST:
Isabella
Frederick
Asoka
Saladin
Mao Zedong
BEST:
Alexander (good traits)
Peter (good at end)
Hatpetshut (My Fave)
Gandhi (always builds wonders)
Huyana Capac (always does well against me)

 

[Lord Gideon]

Hatshepsut is terrible for me. I rarely use creative as I usualy build stonhenge to get a great prophet. Spiritual also does not do anything except give me a turn here or there.

 

[InFlux5]

I agree floppy. Maybe I should take Louis off my list.

 

[smjjames]

WORST:
Isabella
Frederick
Asoka
Saladin
Mao Zedong
BEST:
Alexander (good traits)
Peter (good at end)
Hatpetshut (My Fave)
Gandhi (always builds wonders)
Huyana Capac (always does well against me)

is that for player civs or AI civs?

anyway, I'm still rather new at this game and still developing strategies, so I don't really have any dislikes/likes as far as leaders though. although in one game I found the Incas really annoying and stubborn when I was trying to culturally convert them.

 

[blastoidstalker]

The only emporer game I have won has been with Hatty. I found her UU extremely useful for the early war I needed to win at that level. I think it is the most underatted UU in the game. War chariots with 30-50% withdraw rate can be quickly produced (half cost of horse archers with only 1 less combat strength). Though you lose some in attcking cities, there cheep production cost and ability to withdraw allow them to overwhelm opponets. Her spiritual trait allows you to quickly switch from war to non-war settings.