worst (and best) leaders for players

[civvver]

Who do you think is the weakest leader for players to play? Since we don't know the map or opponents all you can consider are traits, uu and ub. I'm interested to see if I'm missing some advance strats that make some leaders I think are bad good, and vice versa.

My three choices are sitting bull, toku, charlemagne and monty.

Sitting bull... bleh, he has pretty bad traits. Protective most consider worst in game, and philosophy is ok, but not usually a top trait unless combined with something else. His uu is basically a weaker axeman. They get a slight advantage vs other axes, but will suffer vs archers a lot more, and since AI usually spam archers, that's not a good thing. Being resource-less is good, but I don't find many games where I can't access copper. Iron is usually harder to come by. UB is like doubling down on his protectiveness, enchaning archery units further. I suppose you could do some sweet archer rushes?

Tokugawa too has bad traits, protective and aggressive. Samurai are actually pretty strong and maces are a unit I use a lot so I don't mind them, a middling UU. His UB sucks though. I hate building coal over hydro or nuclear because of the exrta pollution and 10% hammers at that point doesn't seem like enough. Even if it is good it comes so super late in the game.

Charles too has protective. Seeing a trend here? Imperialistic isn't bad but it's definitely middle tier not top tier trait. His UU is worthless. It basically means you can spam 1 unit type to handle melee and mounted instead of just building maces and protecting them with 1 pike. On top of that they require iron, as do pikes, but you could conceivable make an army of maces with copper and protect with multiple cheap spears if things were dire. His UB is ok I guess cus you will build courthouses anyway, but it's probably only really good on huge maps.

Monty, oh man I hate this guy, not great traits, spiritual is pretty good though, I dislike aggressive, but his UU again is just a resource-less type, which would be cool except they actually made their base strength lower than their counter part. So they're quite weak. His UB may be his saving grace if you are great at handling the whip. I am not and probably underrate it.

Overall I'm giving the slight edge to toku.

For best leaders, aside from the standard inca, darius, elizabeth, pacal, mehmed etc. what are some overlooked ones you've done well with?

 

[fed1943]

Ghandi is very strong, too. Philo and Spiritual two top traits. The fast worker, each one saves a lot of turns. The mausoleum comes late, but it´s not bad to get +2 hapiness.

 

[lymond]

lol....Philo is a top tier trait and any leader who has that trait is going to be at least above average. Sitting Butt is actually a nice leader for high levels due to philo and Dogs can save your game on Deity. Oh..and copper is far harder to come by than iron.

Agree on Chuck, Toku and Monty though. I think if Jags, as resourceless and strength of axeman, should have been available at BW...just take away the city attack bonus. They'd be kick arse in that case. It's the Aztec starting techs that really hurt him though. The Sac Altar though is pretty sweet. Jags are an awesome choke unit though.it's just the darn IW requirement that kills. However, if I roll a Monty start with commerce, I will head straight to IW and unless my Woody Jags. Monty can be a really fun leader to play with the right starts.

I find Sury to be generally underrated as a leader. Uniques are meh, although I think the Baray is underrated. Great traits though. Same with Pericles...plus cheaper Odeons which are very nice UB IMO.

I do like Mehmed and Pacal a lot. Pacal has always been my favorite leader.

 

[Fippy]

Hmm one of the most underrated should be Peter, how often does he get mentioned?
Phi and exp is not just good for traits, but awesome.
Hunting is not great as starting tech, but mining okay. UU and UB outside the overpowered ones are not that important, and it's always boring to compare something like war chariots. They can win games on their own, nothing else needed, so there's sadly nowhere to start on UU discussions.

 

[Fippy]

But you are an exp fanboy Lymo, not that there's anything wrong with that /runs away

 

[lymond]

I love my exp

 

[Randy Random]

Charlie is the worst with terrible traits and terrible starting techs, followed by Genghis and Toku who have terrible traits and not as terrible starting techs. I don't think Monty is as bad because Spiritual is awesome and so are Sacrificial Alters, even though his starting techs are awful.

Lots of very good leaders. HC, obviously is #1, and Ramesses, Gandhi, and Mansa are the next tier. After that pretty much any combination of FIN and IND will generally be good, especially combined with good starting techs.

 

[Kouvb593kdnuewnd]

Hard to go wrong with expansionist. Getting the early workers can speed up the rest of your game, extra health can be very nice at times and quick graneries are quite helpful.

 

[Archon_Wing]

SB is nothing close to the worst. His resourceless UU guarantees early defenses without any need to think of archery. Protective is weak yes, but if you really want to make that border city a wall, you certainly can make it unbreakable. Philosophical isn't just "okay" considering Great People early on are what it takes to go ahead, unless you think 50 bpt will get to liberalism easily.

And all these things happen early on.

Montezuma is sorta weak, but the sacrificial altar is powerful, and slavery is powerful, so that makes it one of the best UBs ever. Whip an army of cuirs in a dozen turns easy.

Tokugawa is definitely crap, since he only gets benefits rather late in the game, and they're really not game changers. Shale plants are okay if you lack coal, and you're wasting way too much time if you're waiting for hydro, since the game will end by then.

Charlemagne is indeed bad, but he's more bad for HRE's terrible starting techs than anything else.

Worst IMO:
Saladin-- Nothing , bad starting techs, Madrasa and UU have some obscure niches
Tokugawa-- Worst traits, UU/UB are alright but come rather late
Boudica-- Terrible Staring techs, bad traits, garbage UB, UU has some niche and doesn't need iron. Honestly would rather take Tokugawa over her in various circumstances, and Brennus in all.
Alexander-- Only PHI. Bad starting techs, decent UB, UU is largely irrelevant unless you feel like not building a spearman. Would never take him over Pericles.
Charlemagne-- Bad Staring Techs, great UB, terrible else.
Washington-- Okay traits, nothing else. The other 2 American leaders have strong traits combos to compensate. Would never take him over them.
Hammurabi-- Terrible traits, mediocre UU. Starting techs and a good UB keep him afloat.
Mao-- Expansive is alright, Chokonus have niche use, but hard to leverage. Carried by China's good starting techs. Would never take him over Qin.

Best IMO
Cupac-- Duh. When the worst thing about him is him being industrous, and that's the best thing about other leaders, that's how you know he's OP. Everything helps him from the first turns onward. Terrace nearly gives him the creative trait, though it does take hammers.

Mansa Musa-- Decent traits with one of the best early defense UUs in the game that has offensive uses too. A bit more specialized than Cupac since the mint isn't very good.

Hatshepsut-- Strongest potential early game with great starting techs. They are one tech away from a deadly War Chariot rush; Egypt with horses makes them on the top. CRE is great for early expansion and conquest too. The UB and spiritual synergize into cheesy AP shenanigans, and that in and of itself is worth it alone.

Ramesses-- Same as Hatty but not as consistent since CRE is easier to use than IND. But Ramesses is even cheesier with the AP.

Gandhi-- Fast Worker. Honestly, if that's all that India has, it'd still kick major ass as worker turns are gold. Not to mention they can get out of trouble faster. As always a UU concerning something you build regardless will be excellent. His traits are decent as well. His UB comes late, but ironically when you want it.

Asoka-- Same reasons as above. Don't like ORG as much as PHI

Darius-- Good traits paired with immortals. I have to admit I forgot what the Persian UB was.

Willem van Oranje-- He may not be the best at anything, but he can certainly challenge anyone., Fin/CRE is one of the most forgiving trait combos in the game, allowing you for flexible city placement and keeping your coffers loaded. He really shines on water maps, or really any map with significant seas as the East Indiaman rules seas and carries as many units as a transport. Dike comes late, but is quite strong.

He's good anywhere, but on sea, he rules.

Elizabeth-- I don't think England has that much going for it. The UB as with most gold multipliers isn't good especially when it is so late, and the UU is decent but also comes too late. But I think she has the best trait combo in the entire game, and that certainly shows. Fin to get rich for science, and PHI to push your science even further.

Augustus-- Praetorians PraetoriansPraetoriansPraetoriansPraetoriansPraetoriansPraetoriansPraetoriansPraetoriansPraetoriansPraetoriansPraetoriansPraetoriansPraetoriansPraetoriansPraetorians. Unless you don't have iron, in which case he has decent traits, and that's about it. For this reason I pick him above Julius.


Louis XIV-- Like Egypt, the starting techs are one away from a Chariot rush, but he doesn't have War Chariots. Traits are some of the most flexible, and so is the UU. Musketeers being 2 moves can help escort mounted units and they incidentally come when Cuirs are around The UB is awful though.

Suleiman-- Ironic I think IMP/PHI is better for war than civs with AGG/PRO. But it certainly feels that way. His UB is awesome and his UU is nice to have around regardless of what you want to do. It just seems like he's more than the sum of his parts and can handle anything.

Joao-- On paper, he doesn't seem to have much going for him, but in practice that doesn't seem to be the case. IMP and EXP aren't the god tier traits but together they do form an odd synergy, and that usually involves building a ton of cities. His UU allows him to get to new lands faster. UB is awful.

He isn't good at much, but he doesn't need to be.

 

[lymond]

Saladin is not Philo, unless you are playing Vanilla

Boudi - starting techs are her worse deal. Charismatic is a great trait, and I love Gallic Warriors...very underrated UU. But yeah, Brennus wins out with better traits..he's actually pretty good.

Washington is interesting IMO. His traits are actually very good, but he is American. I consider him the ultimate "neutral" leader in the game and IMO the best for learning the game, since he has solid traits, flexible starting techs, and late UU/UB that cannot be a distraction for newer players.

A lot can be said for starting tech in general. I almost value those more than traits really. Start with Charles, Monty, Cetls for example are generally painful in most cases. But leaders with great traits like the French, Hammy, Chinese, Gilgs, etc. always seem to make for good games.

Yeah, Bowman suck donkey leavings, but Org is okay. I tend to have good games with Hambone, and for some bizarre reason every game I roll with him has stone nearby.

 

[Archon_Wing]

Saladin is not Philo, unless you are playing Vanilla

Boudi - starting techs are her worse deal. Charismatic is a great trait, and I love Gallic Warriors...very underrated UU. But yeah, Brennus wins out with better traits..he's actually pretty good.

LOL! That shows you how much I play as Arabia. In a way, I was hoping for something redeeming. PHI sounds more appropriate for him too, given his reputation.

That just makes him the worst.by far. I guess having a resourceless knight HAS to count for something.

And CHA isn't bad. Certainly not bottom tier, but I feel that when that's your strongest trait when paired with something poor like AGG, then overall, you are sorta weak, I mean Fin/Cha is a lot different from Pro/CHa

 

[lymond]

True..trait pairings can matter, but on its own Char is among the 2nd tier traits (Philo/Fin are first tier) and its value is pretty high on higher levels. Most experience players like it.

Sal's starting techs hurt a lot. I mean wheel is great but like Justy, it is just painful not having a food tech or mining. Spiritual is a very very nice trait, but not for the less experienced. Madrassa pretty decent especially if you can build the Mids, but not really game changing. Knights just not good in general, but Camels can be can of fun on levels that you can make use of it.

Ha..you should see the crazy Deity BOTM we had some months ago.

 

[Fippy]

Yeah, Bowman suck donkey leavings, but Org is okay.

Unless you play k-mod with Shaka close
I would think they can actually be really good in this mod..

 

[Archon_Wing]

True..trait pairings can matter, but on its own Char is among the 2nd tier traits (Philo/Fin are first tier) and its value is pretty high on higher levels. Most experience players like it.

Sal's starting techs hurt a lot. I mean wheel is great but like Justy, it is just painful not having a food tech or mining. Spiritual is a very very nice trait, but not for the less experienced. Madrassa pretty decent especially if you can build the Mids, but not really game changing. Knights just not good in general, but Camels can be can of fun on levels that you can make use of it.

Ha..you should see the crazy Deity BOTM we had some months ago.

Well, mass priests sounds like a fun thing and there's always some cheap Religous tactics to use. I just lean towards Egypt for them. Though I guess Sal with stone may be worth playing through now.

Oh, yea I guess Justinian really isn't that great either though Catapharacts are rather strong even if they're in a weird part of the tech tree.

Spiritual definitely is good. I just don't think it's as good unless supported by another trait. Though I did go above and add what I thought was the best-- and a lot of them happen to be spiritual.

Unless you play k-mod with Shaka close
I would think they can actually be really good in this mod..

I think K-mod increases the value of PRO by quite a bit.

 

[Fippy]

so so, prot remains obscure cos AIs are also not attacking blindly anymore in k-mod.
If you are pushed back defensively too much, they will wander around and archers cannot do much.
Imo it increases aggressive value by more.

 

[lymond]

Yeah, it's still all about offensive being better than defensive. Granted there are times where you just need the defensive. But if you are on the defensive it means your land is likely getting trashed.

no props on my pic

yeah, GPs are nice if you are doing a SSE/WWE economy.

 

[Randy Random]

Saladin-- Nothing , bad starting techs, Madrasa and UU have some obscure niches
Tokugawa-- Worst traits, UU/UB are alright but come rather late
Boudica-- Terrible Staring techs, bad traits, garbage UB, UU has some niche and doesn't need iron. Honestly would rather take Tokugawa over her in various circumstances, and Brennus in all.
Alexander-- Only PHI. Bad starting techs, decent UB, UU is largely irrelevant unless you feel like not building a spearman. Would never take him over Pericles.
Charlemagne-- Bad Staring Techs, great UB, terrible else.
Washington-- Okay traits, nothing else. The other 2 American leaders have strong traits combos to compensate. Would never take him over them.
Hammurabi-- Terrible traits, mediocre UU. Starting techs and a good UB keep him afloat.
Mao-- Expansive is alright, Chokonus have niche use, but hard to leverage. Carried by China's good starting techs. Would never take him over Qin.

Surprised you left out who in my estimation is the 2nd or 3rd worst leader in the game, Genghis. I think he is much worse than Boudica (Charismatic is great and Aggressive actually complements it in her case), Alex (Philosophical is always useful, almost guarantees lib below deity) Washington (great traits, great trait combo, agriculture is one of the best starting techs), Hammurabi (Organized is decent and he starts with the wheel and agriculture), and Mao (expansive is great and agriculture and mining is beaten only by agriculture and the wheel as the best starting tech combo.) Edit: I also don't hate Saladin because Spiritual is amazing.

 

[Archon_Wing]

Surprised you left out who in my estimation is the 2nd or 3rd worst leader in the game, Genghis. I think he is much worse than Boudica (Charismatic is great and Aggressive actually complements it in her case), Alex (Philosophical is always useful, almost guarantees lib below deity) Washington (great traits, great trait combo, agriculture is one of the best starting techs), Hammurabi (Organized is decent and he starts with the wheel and agriculture), and Mao (expansive is great and agriculture and mining is beaten only by agriculture and the wheel as the best starting tech combo.) Edit: I also don't hate Saladin because Spiritual is amazing.

Genghis is weak yes, but Keshiks are just so good that they cancel out the badness, more so than anything HRE/Celts/Japan can muster to make a meaningful difference. There's just more scenarios where Genghis will go far (horses). It doesn't make him good, and his grandson is still superior, but it also saves him from being bottom tier because Mongols will always have the edge with horses and horse units are the best units in the game.

I would say he's like Julius but weaker. Later has better traits and Praets are better, but then again it's more of an investment to reveal Iron, and both are unremarkable when they don't have the resource. But incredibly deadly when they do.

I don't like Alex, because while PHI is good, there's no reason to pick him over any other PHI leader, especially when you could play the exact same Civ with Pericles at the helm and the later gets cheaper libraries which is good with PHI because you can GS's lightning fast and builds his own UB faster. I'd even go as far to say that I would take a CRE leader over an AGG one if I wanted to be aggressive. Plus Greece has pretty lousy starting techs and the UU used to be cooler but now it's just a bit more flexible, so Alex does really nothing to encourage me to play as them.

Same goes with Boudica. Celts are already so-so and very specific, but Brennus at least has some spiritual to play diplomacy tricks as well as rapid switching military civics. That's kinda interesting. Maybe it's just me, but promotions are nice, though just not enough for me to pick them.

I mean, take Montezuma. His traits aren't that great. His UU is sometimes a downgrade, but no doubt he is a military powerhouse that you can't get anywhere else thanks to the UB making whipping even more powerful and reducing the maintenance issues related to conquest. It's not just strong. It's insanely overpowered because it makes something strong to something even stronger. And the AGG just adds to it, but it's rather something just good to have.

And yea, Ham and Mao are mostly salvaged by their starting techs, making them "less bad" than my other choices. But that's about it. They don't really do anything better civ combos can't. They're just better than the worst. And honestly, I'd take Montezuma or Shaka minus one trait over all of them, much less the top tiers. Probably a blank Incan Civ too.

 

[lymond]

I'd even go as far to say that I would take a CRE leader over an AGG one if I wanted to be aggressive.
.

I really wanted to highlight this comment as it really makes a good point that a lot of newer/less experienced players fail to grasp initially. That is, it is the more passive sounding traits that help you win this game and conquer your enemies.

Yeah, BTS Phalanx was just a silly idea. Someone was smokin' something when that made that decision. Greeks start with Hunting anyway, so if you have Phalanx you have Spears. Why drop a defensive bonus on a unit when another unit does it better both offensively and defensively at the same time. And the AI WILL still attack you Phalanx with chariots..it's not a real deterrent...you are just more likely to survive.

Ha..you know..Shaka should get a mention. He is certainly not a top tier leader, but he's actually real solid if you have copper. Agg/Ikhanda is one of the best synergies in the game, and Impis are awesome choke units. You are rarely going to conquer with them but you can choke the heck out of the AI and gain highly promo Impis (which can become Rifles one day). And that little bonus they get is innate. Go for a couple of WoodyIII Impis asap. They get excellent odds on Archers in forest/jungle, so you can just kill them all day. Ofc, if there is no copper Anyway, I have a lot of fun with him when I roll him. in fact I had a really fun game recently. Wish I had the start save on that one or I'd post it up.

 

[Fippy]

Yep it's true, Alex is usually weaker than Peri but imo leaders are best ranked by "who do i get when i go random".
He should not be on weakest leader lists, at least with how i look at them, Agg still better than prot and Phi sits on top.
Imo Phi alone makes him much more flexible than let's say Genghis.

Sac Altar..i always thought it's the most overrated UB, by the time you would want them early whipping has long been done, and later whipping already gets supported by many more happy resis, or buildings.
It's..unimportant, unless i really miss something ~~