Worst 5 leaders and why

[alexmatusiak]

I'm not really sure why Isabella appears on this list so often. At higher difficulties, I've found the ability to tweak my civics often a great asset, and the extra health from expansive is not just a small boost but a major increase to the starting health of a city. If I were a warmonger, yea, I wouldn't take Isabella, but I don't think she gets the overall love she deserves.

Cool history too.

-Alex-

 

[Nyvin]

To me I always see the traits being either 'supportive' or 'strategic'. With Creative, Financial, Expansive, and Organized as supportive, meaning they basically make you not have to worry about something as you normally would so that you can focus on other things easier.

Spiritual, Philosophical, Industrious and Aggressive are more strategic traits, meaning they basically give you an edge up on a certain part of the game, which if that part of the game is important they help a lot, but it is possible to not be using them much at all at some points in the game.

So for me, I always liked the supportive traits, since they help you no matter what. And usually having two different supportive traits is the best combo for me, whoever the leader is.

 

[futurehermit]

After giving this some thought, I think these are the worst...

1) Alex
2) Genghis
3) Kublai
4) Montezuma
5) Napoleon
6) Louis
7) Isabella
8) Roosevelt
9) Mao
10) Asoka

Imo these leaders' traits lack synergy and/or they have kinda a gimpy uu.

Worst 5 in no particular order:

1) Monty (super gimpy uu)
2) Alex (odd uu, no synergy)
3) Isabella (no synergy)
4) Mao (no synergy)
5) The Khans (The fact that you have to research two dead end techs to get their uu when it isn't that great anyways kinda sux)

 

[Older than Dirt]

I am shocked to find Isabella ranked so low. She has the Spiritual trait, lots of Jesuits and a kind husband.

 

[futurehermit]

i guess it depends on the game speed. i play on normal so anarchy doesn't last very long. plus i dunno how often you would change civics with isabella, often? i find i usually play civs that don't require me to change civics often (or else i just don't use civics efficiently enough...)

i just find that spiritual and expansive don't really go that well together. i guess they fit together for making a gpp city but that's about it imo.

 

[nealhunt]

The bonus for Spiritual is that you can change civics based on what you need right now. A small improvement early can snowball into a later advantage. If you are playing a Spiritual civ and you don't trade civics/religions 20 times or more in a game, you're not using the trait. Note that you not only save the "extra" turns of anarchy, you gain the ability to grab intermediate civics that might not otherwise be worth the switch.

A good example is an early civ with the Pyramids. Most people get Pyramids, set it on Representation and forget it until late in the game. With Spiritual, you can flip back and forth to Police State when you want the +25% production for a military buildup at no penalty. Use slavery to whip all the now-unhappy population into a huge army and off to war you go. Capture land then switch your civics back to build the economy.

Or maybe a more common version of a similar technique would be to flip between Bureaucracy and Vassalage. Put units in the production queue. As each gets close to finishing, start a new one. When you have several cities with 2-3 units in the queue within a few turns of popping out, switch to Vassalage. Out come the units with +2xp each. Then go back to bureaucracy.

Or if you find yourself with a holy city (perhaps because you pounded them via Police State/Vassalage) but don't want to slow down to build monasteries everywhere, switch to Organized Religion long enough to pump out a wave of missionaries then switch back.

To be fair, it is a bit of a micromanager's trait used to optimize your civics. But to me the really cool thing is that it allows you to essentially pursue multiple strategies simultaneously.

 

[ownagehamster76]

Genghis is definitely the worst. He is always very slow technologically, so he can never really become a threat. The AI doesn't take advantage of rushes like humans do, so they can't really start a game thinking about beelining. He hates everyone, making him just another nuisance. Since the Keshik is a rush unit, the Mongol cities don't really need to worry about health, making expansive lame. Finally, the Keshik isn't much of an improvement. A first strike and no movement penalty don't make up for a unit that can get its' behind handed to it by a spearman.

 

[Lance of Llanwy]

Worst AIs(in no particular order)
Isabella- She is ALWAYS, ALWAYS backwards in my games, probably because she is such a fanatical leader. She seems difficult to deal with, and I think it extends to the AI. She always seems to make powerful enemies who beat her down.
Montezuma- Monty is always backwards, though he'll destroy you if you neglect your military. Usually easily contained by telling him to go attack some one else and then cleaning him up once his out-dated army gets pwned.
Genghis- He never seems to do ANYTHING, and actually has me thinking he's a cream puff, the way I've abused him diplomatically.
Tokugawa- He never makes any friends, unless a religion randomly spreads into one of his cities. Most of the time, he is a backward and pathetically weak prick.
Saladin: See Izzie. Never, ever seems to be very powerful and has never amounted to anything but a backward zealot in my games.

Worst Leaders(IMO, no order)
Monty- I'm sorry, but the Jaguar is flat-out terrible. It loses one strength for....not needing iron, being 5 hammers cheaper than a swordsman, and getting +20% jungle defense. Ummm...wow. Axemen are pretty much better in every way, as +10% city attack means even less at 5 strength than it does at 6. And his traits have some potential too....

Mao- Philo/Organized? Where in the world is the synergy there? He's a frankenstein leader. They just don't match in any meaningful way that I can make out. The cho-ko-nu's not bad though.

Alexander- See above, except Agg/Phi. Another trait mis-match, and the UU is nothing to get excited over either, though it's quite a bit removed from the jaguar and the camel archers.

Saladin- His traits really aren't bad, but they aren't great either. The Camel Archers are really what gets him here.

Worst UUs(again, in no particular order and IMO)
Camel Archers- They don't require iron and horses. Yay. And..yeah, that's about it, unless they get some first strikes, which would make sense because they're supposed to be, y'know, archers.

Jaguar- In all but the most dire circumstances, they're the only UU that's actually worse than the unit they replace. And they don't even have a chance against axemen, and aren't even good at taking cities, which is what they're supposed to be good for!

Musketeers- I like both Frenchmen, but the Musketeers could use a little oomph, considering they obsolete faster than you can say "Knights." Did I mention that they don't stack up well against knights? I think it lands here more because the musketmen just plain suck than not being an improvement. The advantage just isn't enough to salvage muskets and their short window of usefulness.

Panzers- I'm correct in believing that the only way they're better is that they get a bonus against other tanks, right? Great. If I'm still playing at this point, I'm probably not looking for domination or conquest and am too busy powering towards a spaceship to fight my wars myself. That's what my lapdogs are for. All bets are off it's something else. I always have some gunships around pillaging to take care of tanks, but I simply aren't looking to polish off a big opponent at this point, just some backward weakling who I haven't found the time to finish off yet. If they get something more, all bets are off.

There you have it. My no doubt uneducated opinion....

 

[Pantastic]

I'm amazed that people think philosophical and aggressive are a mismatch, I like Alexander quite a bit. Using lots of specialists for your economy lets you start off faster than waiting for cottages to grow, and lets you make newly captured towns productive much more quickly. Using lots of specialists with a philosophical leader means loads of great people early on in the game, sometimes you're not even sure what to do with all of them. You use your aggressive nature (plus the boost to bronze age warfare from phalanxes) to spread your empire early on, run your economy with specialists, and get tons of GPs for all kinds of fun.

You won't get much out of Alexander with a simple cottage spam strategy, though, it's more difficult to manage specialists than to just take a financial civ and spam cottages.

 

[cabert]

Worst:

Louis - has the two traits that are most depreciated in the late game, so he isn't even any good at cultural victories. Uninspiring UU. Plus looking at his face makes you want to punch it in.

Genghis - Expansive really doesn't go with aggressive and an early UU, as you tend to grab a lot of health resources anyway. UU also requires research of a tech that's an early game dead end (Horseback riding.)

Victoria - cause it's annoying not to have drawn Elizabeth instead

Roosevelt - same as above, but with Washington

Monte - dishonourable mention here just because the jaguar is so bad

that's exactly what i would have said myself

 

[Andorim]

I am surprised at the number of times that Frederick was listed as one of the worst; he is always one of my favourites to play -- call it an ethnic weakness.

I hate having either Monty, Issie, or Toku as a next door neighbours. They are impossible to get along with unless you share a religion and they usually choose a religion that no one else shares.

 

[Quan Yu]

as far as which leader is good or bad depends on what level your playing at ..what map size..what map settings..etc etc etc..the whole levels thing is kinda dumb anyway ive won at emporer..just set it to duel no barbs and keep reloading until you get a way better start than the comp...pick caesar..accept his religion..build praetors and take him out fast...*yawn* i could spend a paragraph or 2 telling you what a god i am at this game..but the truth is i dont feel like i really accomplished a great deal "winning" that game. its more challenging and fun playing on larger maps where you havent a chance in hell )

 

[Uncle_Joe]

I'm also surprise that Isabella is thought to be weak. She is one of my favorites to play. Its fairly easy to get an early Religion with Mysticism to start. If you can get a Great Prophet, you are in business.

1.61 seemed to increase Anarchy times (at least on Epic where I play) so Spiritual moved up a bit in my book. Expansionist also got an additional +1 Health...not a big deal, but you can often ignore building Aqueducts and the like for quite some time with Expansionist (and cheap Granaries are very nice to boot).

The Conquistador is a solid UU and hits at about the time most of the land is gone (which, for me, is a good time to start thinking about war). Its certainly not a game changing UU like the Praetorian or the Cossack, but it does the job fairly well.

I still think Financial is one of the better traits, but it definately lost some power relative to some of the others (Organized is better now because of the increased Civics costs, Spiritual and Expansionist are improved as mentioned above).

 

[Appers]

Maybe it's because I'm playing below my difficulty, but I've never seen the point of Expansive. Most games I can avoid sickness with a little planning on where to build aqueducts and where to stick a few specialists. It just seems a little pointless to give even more help in an area that's relatively "easy" to deal with in the first place.

I'm surprised at how underrated Spiritual seems. It's the most open trait, allowing you to do anything with civics and the lack of anarchy means you can quickly swap your entire empire to do something without worrying about the consequences. Swapping from the peaceful Representation/Free Speech/Emancipation/Free Market/Free Religion to the wartime Police State/Nationhood/Slavery/Mercantilism/Theocracy immediately is a powerful advantage at the start of a war, and the ability to swap back immadiately again any time after 5 turns is useful for building the economy back up afterwards. And quick Representation-> Universal Suffrage swaps to hurry the end of wonders and useful buildings are usually frequent without fears about killing the science rate for too long.

Another leader I've seen a few times here is Saladin. From all the leaders, I can't think of few better diplomatic victory candidates. The Mysticism start allows for religion hoarding, letting you spread your religion of choice to everyone without worrying about the ever irritating relationship hit for differing state religions. The Inspirational trait leads to a fast GP rate in early game, allowing advances through the tech tree whilst you concentrate on grabbing the religions. It also gives you the technological advantage, and this allows for more tech trading with the other civs for another relationship bonus and, if it all goes to pot, at least gives you technologies to give to the sceptical ones. Although admittedly the UU isn't the best, it can often work wonders in a tight spot without horses or iron. They can be built straight from a new city, without connection with the capital. Ultimately, without either you're screwed quickly so having the camel archer to fall back on is comforting, if nothing else.

 

[smjjames]

Worst:

Louis - has the two traits that are most depreciated in the late game, so he isn't even any good at cultural victories. Uninspiring UU. Plus looking at his face makes you want to punch it in.

Genghis - Expansive really doesn't go with aggressive and an early UU, as you tend to grab a lot of health resources anyway. UU also requires research of a tech that's an early game dead end (Horseback riding.)

Victoria - cause it's annoying not to have drawn Elizabeth instead

Roosevelt - same as above, but with Washington

Monte - dishonourable mention here just because the jaguar is so bad

I don't see how Victoria would be that bad. and I tried her in a game last night on chieftain and inland sea, although I could have done better if a barbarian city didn't bug me for several turns and force me to focus on that. although Asoka and Kublai did see or sense my problems with the barbarian city and had sent one or two units into the region. I took care of it, but it was a distraction.

and Monty as an AI is annoying

also, the Khans aren't too bad, in the game I had last night Kublai and Asoka went to war at each other (I managed to diplomatically stay out of it and act as an observer, but the way the AI wages war is terrible because they make a peace agreement shortly after (I think the first time though which was after Kublai captured an indian city, was so he could build up more forces) even though some time later I had them fight each other again, only to make peace shortly after. what I mean is that from the way they hated each other, it seemed like they wanted to slit each others throats, not give a punch in the face or two and leave. I fully expected Kublai to conquer the Indians, but nope.

 

[Kalleyao]

Worst Montezuma, Louis and Mao.

 

[InFlux5]

"Maybe it's because I'm playing below my difficulty, but I've never seen the point of Expansive. Most games I can avoid sickness with a little planning on where to build aqueducts and where to stick a few specialists."

Yes, it's because you're playing on a low difficulty.

As others have said, how "good" a civ is depends a lot on the map. E.g. being surrounded by flood plains looks a lot better as an Exp. civ. Also, cheap granaries are just as important as the extra health, if not more. As an Exp. civ, all I need to worry about for many, many turns is hooking up luxuries (and bronze/iron,) and my cities can just keep on growing.

I like Isabella a lot. She's great for "builders" who don't want a sprawling empire. (I.e. cultural or diplomatic victory.) She lends herself to having fewer, but larger and more developed cities. And what I said above about hooking up luxuries? She barely needs to do that since it's so easy to found several religions. The Conquistador is a decent UU, and - last but not least - if you play as Isabella it means you don't have to play against her!

 

[acidsatyr]

wow, I'm surprised how many people choose Monty as a weak human player, or spiritual trait. My guess is those people play on mediocre levels, i.e below immortal or emperor. Best traits in my opinion are these: Aggressive, Spiritual, and Financial. (in no particular order, although aggressive is my favorite. On high levels there's no question that you'll spend half of your turns in war).
Spiritual trait is amazingly good trait. But mastering it reacquires a lot of experience and knowledge of the game. In my last immortal game I changed my civics, switched religions more than 40 times (yeah I counted). I can’t remember how many times I switched from heredity rule to police state, bureaucracy, vassalage, etc. need to rush something with money? Not a problem, go with universal suffrage for few turns. Somebody asks you to accept their state religion? No problem. That makes you not loose 3 turns and go from pleased to annoyed in relations. This is the kind of thing that makes you win on highest levels.
Financial in a no brainier. Although, now that I'm more experienced then before, financial is not a big deal at all.
Industrial is a waste. You can not get any wonder with or without it. Expansive is worthless, if played on standard maps. I never found philosophical appealing, as I can win a game without ever building a single scientist or engineer. Organized has its uses. All that said, I think Incas, Aztecs, Mali are very, very powerful civs, definitely my favorites. The fact that all have not-so-great UU doesn’t mean a damn thing. So many other civs have mediocre UU -> America, France, Greeks, etc, but the ones I mentioned above have very powerful traits that even if they didn’t have UU at all, they would still rock.
I think Mao and Isabella are not that great, but I never played with them, just don’t like traits that much, I also never like Caesar, his expansive trait is a waste of good potential and after swordsman era he is absolutely mediocre....

 

[smjjames]

yea, but Industrious helps speed up wonders, and the traits do have thier buildings which are at half cost.

 

[DementedAvenger]

The aztecs are the only civ with a UU that is worse (significantly so) than the unit it replaces.