Worst 5 leaders and why

That really depends how you look at it, and what map you play on. There were times when I didn’t have iron at all, so ANY kind of swordsman at that point is good. The chances are that you will have iron, but even when I do have the ability to build swordsmen, I'd rather build axmen. I might have 2 swordsmen in a large stack of axmen. Also I wage very early war with axmen, and then try to bring up economy so rarely ever use swordsmen to full potential. Like I said it all depends...
 
On Emperor and above, Industrious is a waste of trait slot IMO. Any other trait or trait combo is fine. Not a big fan of Financial either, but maybe it's just my political-aesthetical leanings...

My least favourite leaders:

1. Gandhi - not evil enough (except when played by an AI, of course. Backstabbing bastard).
2. Louis XIV - musketeers have too short life span.
3. Roosevelt - american.
4. Washington - also american.
5. Qin Shi Huang - meh, I'd rather play as Mao ;)
 
I play on Emperor. Industrious helps me get those early Pyramids, Stonehenge and Great Library (Pyramids I may not). Maybe even Hanging Gardens. Enough for the rest of the game, IMO. And there'll be another boost when it's time to build those cheap forges.

It's great for militaristic play since quick forges = more units earlier, Stonehenge = early border expansion to grab strategic resources, Pyramids = extra happiness, Great Library = faster teching funded by plunder and Hanging Gardens = more pop = more production/science. That's why Napoleon is great for me.
 
I see a lot of hate for Mao and Napoleon, mostly with the reason that their traits have no synergy and (especially with france) the UU sucks. Since these two are at the top of my "awesome" list I'll try to provide a little insight.

Napoleon. Aggressive, Industrious. Ok, lets see. Industrious is going to let us build half price forges (an expensive improvement) and wonders, aggressive is going to let us build stronger melee/gunpowder units. How about building some axemen, chopping out the oracle for early metal casting, getting cheap forges and making more axemen, faster? You don't even need to chop oracle, this wonder is ridiculously cheap with industrious and you can build it in your capitol the slow way no problem. This has got to be one of the best MP tactics there is, I always have great (and fast) games with the Napster. Musketeers are good with Napoleon, awesome pillagers and they get defensive bonuses. Whoever said knights counter them is a fool.. I dare you to attack my musketeer with a knight while I get defensive bonuses. Should you choose not to attack me (you won't after ALT-mousing the odds) I'll run around you and pillage another town/resource, heh.

Mao. Philosophical, Organized. Ok, fast universities, courthouse, lighthouse. +100% GPP, -50% civic cost. Naturally, we are going to want some specialists and GP's. Try to get your GP city founded and growing ASAP. Get a library and 2 sci specialists as early as possible (in the capitol usually) after your necessary worker techs. First great scientist makes an academy in the capitol, the rest will sit here as super specialists. Yeah, your basic super-science city routine. Initally, Beijing will be my specialist city, I tend to switch to the dedicated GP farm when I get Caste System on the go. Every now and then it is advantageous to use one for a critical tech (say, philosophy, which opens up so many good things). You can afford to have a couple more cities than non-organized civs in the early game, which translates to an even larger advantage as the turns progress. You can get half priced courthouses everywhere fast, which is great when on the warpath or just settling like mad.

Mao has access to the all-powerful Cho-ko-nu. Abuse this unit like a red headed foster child. When machinery rolls around, you are undisputed lord and master of all that your eyes survey. I suggest you make LOTS of these guys, and attack everything that isn't your civ-color to make it yours. See, Mao's china is well suited to a medieval era explosion in size. When you take over your whole landmass with cho-ku-nu's you will see how absolutely fantastic it is to have half price courthouses and civic costs to consolidate your gains. Come the renaissance, you get half priced Universities (another expensive improvement), therefore getting Oxford faster, and putting it in your mega science city. Right about here is where you will leave everyone else eating your dust permanently, if you haven't already.
 
I actually tried your Oracle for Metal Casting trick with Napoleon. In both games my wars started too late and I was nearly beaten to the wonder (I was beaten both times because I was too leisurely in shooting for it so I had to reload to adjust). Getting Oracle on Emperor requires you to beeline for Priesthood after BW and to chop rush it before founding your third city. Forget having a few axemen out first or you won't get it. By the time I get the Oracle, put up a forge in my capital and built 8-10 axes, the AI had (in my first game) a lot of archers and (in my second game) horse archers.

Are you talking about MP? In my experience, my usual strat seems to work better in semi high level SP (standard continents, Emperor, 8 AI, Epic). I forget about the religious techs (except Mysticism to get Stonehenge), heading for Writing and Alphabet instead, until I am ready to research Literature (after Alphabet, before Currency). I will then research Polytheism only, never Meditation or Priesthood. If I can trade for Polytheism with something even better.

Somehow chopping that Stonehenge before my third city and/or axemen army can be done, but not so for Oracle. I think it's a question of timing. For some reason Oracle doesn't fit into the early warring pattern very well. That's what I find, anyway. Could I be mistaken? Maybe I was simply unlucky, or was not proficient enough in this to pull it off. Please give me some details in how you pursue your strat. Thanks :)
 
Napoleon is not too bad if you play him right. I won a domination victory just now with Napoleon, although I had to eliminate Isabella to get that, and my Musketeers were good against her since she didn't have gunpowder units and I didn't see her UU, her archers did pose a problem, but I killed her completely, even though she attempted to do a peace treaty after I captured Barcelona.

in fact, I used the tip from the analysis on UUs as offence units thread to get Musketeers as early as possible. I had thought maybe a conquest victory, but changed my mind when I saw that Elizabeth was pretty much keeping up in tech and was starting to like me and decided to do a domination victory and take out Isabella, but keep most of her cities. in fact, I only razed one city and despite my pillaging, I recovered the former spanish territories quickly with the captured workers and the couple I already had.
 
futurehermit said:
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.
frederick a bad leader? :confused: Any leader with creative has an awesome early game advantage, the phil attribute realy makes a great person approach really woth it. If you manage to build stonehenge, not only are you right off the bat a great cultural city, but your going to get 3 great prophets at a very fast rate. Or forget stonehenge your going to expand anyway, but build a library and place 2 science specialist in a city. In the early gaem great peopel for scientific reasons cannot be matched. it isnt till the middle ages that Great people become outdated for research reasons.

anyway I do no think there is a single worst leader in this game, instead there are the 5 uber leaders.
 
Sorry Alef, yes, MP Napoleon strat there. Industrious is near useless at emperor... the idea is to get forges before everyone else and crank more units, not gonna happen in emperor SP.
 
I guess so. But I disagree about Industrious being useless at this level. As I've said, helping me nail a Stonehenge and a Great Library is enough for me early game in between my wars. Plus I get to build that Kremlin, rush the Three Gorges Dam and the Space Elevator when I am shooting for a space win late game. Not bad at all, also considering how rush buying has been nerfed, making all that even harder for a non-industrious civ.
 
yea well some ppl are talking about worst leader in MP and some ppl are talking about SP. So I'm not real sure what traits are not very useful in late game or on higher levels.

I'd like to add Tokugawa as my least favorite AI civ because in the last game he befriended me and then did a defensive pact, and THEN declared war on me! F'in backstabber! May have been because he got enough power, dunno...
 
Isabella is one I can't really find any use for.

Besides that. My favorites would be Elizabeth, Qin Shih Huan, and Catherine.

Mansa's not bad but the AI does better with him than I do.
 
Bismark has to be least usefull on higher difficulties. Industrial and exp. and his unit comes waaayyyyyy too late. And its not all that special either...
 
I groan when I get these ones in random select:

Hatshepsut
Isabella
Bismark
Ghengis Khan
Saladin

I probably ought to put Montezuma on there, too, but after I took three people out with him last night, I just can't bring myself to do it.
 
I have noticed that Bismarck and Isabella are low on everyones list.

In my opinion this is because they are not correctly played.

Bismarck and Isabella are not science civs. How to win the game with them is through sheer productivity. The expansive trait = huge cities early.

To achieve a higher productivity large cities are needed, which means preferably double or maybe thrice the population of the opposing civs seperately. This is not impossible, and can even be achieved while possesing a smaller territory. Having a capital city with 21 citizens by 1400 should be the yardstick for succes.

In order to achieve this Monarchy is the best government for them.

With Isabella there is no need for quite so many garrison troops; this because she is spiritural and can grab two or three religions meaning three temples + one cathdral = five happy citizens in key cities.

Bismarck on the other hand can go for forges early, and churn out troops for garrison duty.

For both these civs alphabet is a primary tech, since it means their high productivity can be converted into science.

A side effect of having a large garrison army is that the AI will rarely, if ever, consider declaring war.
 
T'woust appear we be discussing two related but distinctly different topics, towit: 1) What leader traits are the least effective for winning when used by the AI and 2) What leader traits are the least advantageous for a human becoming (humans are not "beings" because we have no power in ourselves of being - only God has such). For example, the AI may have great difficulty properly using the Aggressive trait, whereas a human (due to innate devious perfidy) may take full advantage of the trait. I personally am very lame at using the Financial trait well, unless I have a very good starting location. Some AI run civs almost invariably do very well, such as Messers Capac and Musa. Moreover, although I have never played a multi-player game, I would guess that the effectiveness of the traits would differ.
 
(humans are not "beings" because we have no power in ourselves of being - only God has such).

what the...
 
Back
Top Bottom