Worst Leader in Warlords?

Thats crazy talk. Asoka is well above average. And what kind of messed up logic is this:

"I consider Organized to be a warring trait..."

"Asoka doesnt have a warring trait or UU"

Organized is one of the best traits in the game as long as you use correctly. Spiritual only enhances the power of the trait since you can run whatever civic combination you like and not have to worry about high expense costs. It will save you a ton of money if you even have a moderate size empire which you definitely should aim for with this guy. You just don't use him correctly.

I agree that Gandhi is better, but Asoka is no slouch.
 
Louis is certainly not bad. Just because he doesn't have Agg, Chr, or Org doesn't mean a leader can't wage war effectively. Not that you need war. Go ahead, indulge the builder within you! You have to take advantage of those traits, and my favorite way of doing that is a MC-slingshot(either with an Engineer or Oracle, take your pick!). He gets beastly production easily and can place his cities however the hell he wants. And, if you want to be a real dick(like his AI) get Stonehenge and laugh as you raze AI cities, all from the safety of your own cultural borders! The UU is uninspiring, true, and the UB is potentially pernicious, but Louis is a very good leader, prolly just not your style.

And Asoka is solid. There's a lot to be said for Organized, and Spiritual works well with it. Unfortunately, he seems to be screaming for 'Mids...but doesn't have the Industrious bonus. Oh well, you can always take 'em. There's a lot to be said for running Police State while building your army and Rep the rest of the time, all without a penalty for switching. Remember, Spiritual is only as useful as you make it....
 
PaganPaulWhisky said:
Thats crazy talk. Asoka is well above average. And what kind of messed up logic is this:

"I consider Organized to be a warring trait..."

"Asoka doesnt have a warring trait or UU"

Organized is one of the best traits in the game as long as you use correctly. Spiritual only enhances the power of the trait since you can run whatever civic combination you like and not have to worry about high expense costs. It will save you a ton of money if you even have a moderate size empire which you definitely should aim for with this guy. You just don't use him correctly.

I agree that Gandhi is better, but Asoka is no slouch.

Ok, I worded that bad. I think Organized ( a warring trait) isnt a good fit with Asoka because his other trait isnt warring, along with no warring UU. Sure, I could switch my Civics around, but I can do that anyways with anyone. And of course Im not warring at all with the fast worker. I would prefer Washington to Asoka if Im going to war.

Part of it is my belief that Organized isnt that great unless you have a big empire and youre capturing cities. Depending on the situation, i like to whip out culture first in a captured city, then walls if im pre-gunpowder, then a courthose. Organized saves me a bunch of time and lets me whip other buildings instead. And of course a huge empire will cost a lot in maintainence.

Now, with a peaceful or moderately-sized empire, I dont feel like there is much benefit with Organized. You can build courthouses at leisure with your first 5-6 cities...most maintaince costs are pretty low. If your civ is bigger then that, just whip it out. Its not that big of a deal.
 
Bizmark always seems to be on the bottom of the leader board. Even with great starts the ai seems to only manage to get him to mid rung.

Sort of miss the germans from civ3.
 
PaganPaulWhisky said:
Louis is by far the worst IMO. He has the worst two traits and the only thing he can do is get a cultural victory. On high difficulties he is almost impossible to play successfully without getting a great start.

I play Louis on emperor and win quite frequently. Creative/industrious makes him the best early wonder grabber in the game and on any but very wide open maps creative lets a cagey opponent play with, shall we say, aggressive early border tactics to severely slow down an opponent without having to send a single unit in.

I don't know, maybe you're thinking higher than Emperor. If you aren't, you just don't know how to play the guy.
 
AfterShafter said:
I play Louis on emperor and win quite frequently. Creative/industrious makes him the best early wonder grabber in the game and on any but very wide open maps creative lets a cagey opponent play with, shall we say, aggressive early border tactics to severely slow down an opponent without having to send a single unit in.

I don't know, maybe you're thinking higher than Emperor. If you aren't, you just don't know how to play the guy.

how many early wonders are u making? I've always found the most efficient thing to do on emperor is to make as few cities as possible, and attack as soon as possible. any buildup just lengthens the time u have to fight the uphill battle versus the AI bonuses. and if u want to slow down an opponent then "aggressive AI border tactics" is about 1/15th as effective as just worker ****ing him by declaring war and sitting in his fat cross. not of course that u can't beat emperor several other ways. but all my fastest/safest/easiest wins have usually started w/ really early war.
 
yavoon said:
how many early wonders are u making? I've always found the most efficient thing to do on emperor is to make as few cities as possible, and attack as soon as possible. any buildup just lengthens the time u have to fight the uphill battle versus the AI bonuses. and if u want to slow down an opponent then "aggressive AI border tactics" is about 1/15th as effective as just worker ****ing him by declaring war and sitting in his fat cross. not of course that u can't beat emperor several other ways. but all my fastest/safest/easiest wins have usually started w/ really early war.

My general take on Civ is this... If I wanted to follow the strategy you're suggesting *every time* I'd play some dumbed down RTS where all you do is military rushes. As it stands, this game has a wealth of non-military oriented building, tech, wonder, and victory options which don't follow the early war route - I like to utilize these methods because in this game, you can, unlike in others. Me, I almost never win emperor before I'm thinking of researching future tech - why miss out on a big chunk of the game just to be "efficient"? Not to say that I don't do the military rush thing, but it gets dull really fast.

Anyways, Pyramids is *bare* minimum for me. 90% oracle, and I sometimes even manage to swing temple of artemis now. I usually get Notre Dame. After that, they keep on coming, but nothing is for sure.
 
Man, if you can take down emperor with Louis then you must be a very good player indeed, however that does not make him a good leader. Industrious is close to useless on that level. I really question your ability to grab the pyramids every time on that level (I usually get beat to them without stone). Aside from the pyramids, securing early wonders does not seem like a great strategy on emp as you will likely get beat to most of them. My post was geared toward monarch/emp level.

Creative is nice to have at the beginning and it is very nice on small maps, however I still think the trait is bottom tier. There just aren't many great strategies for Louis besides a cultural victory. If you don't get the pyramids the game will be extremely difficult. I'll give you that Louis is not my style since I usually play for domination, but I always pick a random leader and adapt my strategy as the situation dictates (its not like I can't play builder games). Compared to other builder civs, Louis is quite sub-par. On noble and below it doesn't really matter what leader you pick and Industrious becomes a decent trait since you can just crank out wonders. This doesn't work at all on higher levels. Some of you are saying that Louis isn't bad and that you can win with him, but you are not offering any alternatives. The idea of the post is to pick the worst leader. I can win with Louis too (not on emperor though), it is just much more difficult then with most civs.

"Bizmark always seems to be on the bottom of the leader board. Even with great starts the ai seems to only manage to get him to mid rung."

I totally agree about Bismark. He is lousy also and ranks right at the bottom with Louis.
 
Mr. Civtastic said:
Ok, I worded that bad. I think Organized ( a warring trait) isnt a good fit with Asoka because his other trait isnt warring, along with no warring UU. Sure, I could switch my Civics around, but I can do that anyways with anyone. And of course Im not warring at all with the fast worker. I would prefer Washington to Asoka if Im going to war.

Part of it is my belief that Organized isnt that great unless you have a big empire and youre capturing cities. Depending on the situation, i like to whip out culture first in a captured city, then walls if im pre-gunpowder, then a courthose. Organized saves me a bunch of time and lets me whip other buildings instead. And of course a huge empire will cost a lot in maintainence.

Now, with a peaceful or moderately-sized empire, I dont feel like there is much benefit with Organized. You can build courthouses at leisure with your first 5-6 cities...most maintaince costs are pretty low. If your civ is bigger then that, just whip it out. Its not that big of a deal.

You are not making sense here. You have obviously pointed out the solution yourself. You think Asoka is bad because you flatly refuse to take advantage of his trait before the game has even started. Going for a peaceful empire of 5 or 6 cities is a terrible strategy with Asoka. Maybe you should try going to war or expanding to larger size. I think you will find he is quite good once you get to this stage. It's not like you need to roll over everybody and go crazy with war. Just wipe out a neighbor or take 5 or 6 cities. You hardly need a UU to do this.
 
Mr. Civtastic said:
Ok, I worded that bad. I think Organized ( a warring trait) isnt a good fit with Asoka because his other trait isnt warring, along with no warring UU. Sure, I could switch my Civics around, but I can do that anyways with anyone. And of course Im not warring at all with the fast worker. I would prefer Washington to Asoka if Im going to war.

Part of it is my belief that Organized isnt that great unless you have a big empire and youre capturing cities. Depending on the situation, i like to whip out culture first in a captured city, then walls if im pre-gunpowder, then a courthose. Organized saves me a bunch of time and lets me whip other buildings instead. And of course a huge empire will cost a lot in maintainence.

Now, with a peaceful or moderately-sized empire, I dont feel like there is much benefit with Organized. You can build courthouses at leisure with your first 5-6 cities...most maintaince costs are pretty low. If your civ is bigger then that, just whip it out. Its not that big of a deal.


PaganPaulWhisky said:
You are not making sense here. You have obviously pointed out the solution yourself. You think Asoka is bad because you flatly refuse to take advantage of his trait before the game has even started. Going for a peaceful empire of 5 or 6 cities is a terrible strategy with Asoka. Maybe you should try going to war or expanding to larger size. I think you will find he is quite good once you get to this stage. It's not like you need to roll over everybody and go crazy with war. Just wipe out a neighbor or take 5 or 6 cities. You hardly need a UU to do this.

:lol: OK. So I was about to say the opposite.

Asoka certainly isn't one of the most powerful leaders, but he's not a slouch, either.

Mr. Civtastic, I disagree that Organized is a warring trait. It's a balanced trait. The 1/2 price Courthouses are handy if expanding militarily. But the 1/2 Civic cost makes large cities cheaper, and that can then be leveraged for faster research (a builder strategy), or for peaceful expansion oversees (a peaceful expansion strategy), or for military conquest.

The best overlay strategy with Asoka is to maintain peace while expanding out and up as much as possible, using the Fast Worker to speed improvements, the Organized trait to keep the civic cost of large cities low, and the Spiritual trait to jump to civics for growth.

When ready/needed, use the Spiritual trait to jump civics to a wartime footing, and then beat some heads, using the Organized trait for cheap courthouses getting more military expansion for the same cost.

Then get the peace treaty, use Spiritual to swap civics back for growth, sweep in the Fast Workers to re-improve the new land, grow the new cities up (using Organized to keep the civics cost low).

Rinse and repeat.

BTW, that organized trait and its low civic cost really come to light with somebody like Mehmud (Ottoman). He's got Expansion (+3 health) and the Hamman UB (+2 happiness Classical Era). The Organized trait let's him have a cheaper empire than others, even though each city has 2 more pop. He's a killer for the build, conquer, build, conquer, build, conquer, cycle.
 
PaganPaulWhisky said:
Man, if you can take down emperor with Louis then you must be a very good player indeed, however that does not make him a good leader. Industrious is close to useless on that level. I really question your ability to grab the pyramids every time on that level (I usually get beat to them without stone). Aside from the pyramids, securing early wonders does not seem like a great strategy on emp as you will likely get beat to most of them. My post was geared toward monarch/emp level.

Creative is nice to have at the beginning and it is very nice on small maps, however I still think the trait is bottom tier. There just aren't many great strategies for Louis besides a cultural victory. If you don't get the pyramids the game will be extremely difficult. I'll give you that Louis is not my style since I usually play for domination, but I always pick a random leader and adapt my strategy as the situation dictates (its not like I can't play builder games). Compared to other builder civs, Louis is quite sub-par. On noble and below it doesn't really matter what leader you pick and Industrious becomes a decent trait since you can just crank out wonders. This doesn't work at all on higher levels. Some of you are saying that Louis isn't bad and that you can win with him, but you are not offering any alternatives. The idea of the post is to pick the worst leader. I can win with Louis too (not on emperor though), it is just much more difficult then with most civs.

"Bizmark always seems to be on the bottom of the leader board. Even with great starts the ai seems to only manage to get him to mid rung."

I totally agree about Bismark. He is lousy also and ranks right at the bottom with Louis.

Just because you're not good at leveraging Louis's traits doesn't mean no one can. I wager every leader can be utilized very well, and Louis happens to be pretty good, aside from being French and getting saddled with a poor UU and a UB that doesn't function as well as the building it replaces in some strats. Again, you don't NEED to be Agg or Chm to war effectively. I won a Domination victory with Hattie, and only managed to take out one of my rivals with WCs. The rest of the wars was simply a matter of using a good mix of units and the wise use of them. Inideal? Possibly, but I didn't have overmuch trouble. Your vision is too narrow. I have waged very effective wars with Louis and basically every leader I've played. One of my best games was with Isabella on Terra....
 
AfterShafter said:
My general take on Civ is this... If I wanted to follow the strategy you're suggesting *every time* I'd play some dumbed down RTS where all you do is military rushes. As it stands, this game has a wealth of non-military oriented building, tech, wonder, and victory options which don't follow the early war route - I like to utilize these methods because in this game, you can, unlike in others. Me, I almost never win emperor before I'm thinking of researching future tech - why miss out on a big chunk of the game just to be "efficient"? Not to say that I don't do the military rush thing, but it gets dull really fast.

Anyways, Pyramids is *bare* minimum for me. 90% oracle, and I sometimes even manage to swing temple of artemis now. I usually get Notre Dame. After that, they keep on coming, but nothing is for sure.

sure, there are all sorts of weird ways to win. back when frederick or cyrus was considered the worst leader I won w/ them on emperor. it hardly qualifies them as not being the worst leaders in vanilla though.

as for "why miss out on a big chunk..." and other such stuff like it. I play the game to understand it and beat it. not to lollygag around w/ pretty graphics. I will try many different strats to compare them, but I will understand what is better about them. u'd be surprised how much nuance u can discover about the game when it becomes truly competitive. I think a lot of lollygaggers around here are missing out on more subtle and harder to make strategic decisions.
 
The two Chinese leaders are substantially downgraded in the Warlord. Mao from average to awful, Qin from great to average. Their two financial traits (financial and organized) are taken away, replaced by a very mediocre protective trait. Mao's philosophical trait is replaced by expansive. Geez, what's the point of getting healthy bonus without happiness or money to pay for the maintainence?

OK, this makes Chukies stronger, but Chunkies are useful only when you beeline to machinery. Without money (= research), this become much tougher. In addition, in Warlord many other civs become militaristically stronger. So the help from the protective trait is minimal.

I miss Qin's financial/industrious combination, a great builder trait combo. Now it's tranferred to Huayna. This is funny, with no disrespect, I still don't understand why Inca can be considered so rich and productive.
 
To answer a question with a question...

I noticed the Celtic UB gives only a free guerilla1 promotion to units built in the city. Also their UU's only bonus over it's generic equivalent is the same promotion (Guerilla1). This seems redundant. If you build a Gaellic warrior (free guerilla1) in a city with a dun (free guerilla1) do you get guerilla2 for free? If not, the UU and UB cancel each other and, even though his traits and starting techs are alright, this would piss me off enough to never play him and grant him the title of Worst New Civ.
 
The Celtic UB, the Dun, only grants Guerilla 1 to units that could normally get it. Since Swordsman couldn't normally receive Guerilla 1, the Celtic Warrior doesn't get a bonus from the Dun.

I think everyone is pretty underwhelmed by Brennus's UU and UB, but his traits have surprising synergy. His cities can generate a large amount of happiness early in the game. Starting with Mysticism gets him a jumpstart on founding a religion, make it the state religion, monuments with Charismatic, cheap temples, the Charismatic bonus. It adds up very quickly, although I don't know if it's up to balance out his obviously subpar UU and UB.
 
Considering Organized as a good trait means you 're playing in some sort of single game in monarch the least. Same goes for considering Industrious as a weak one.

What really matters is who really stinks as a leader in general. In both multiplayer and singleplayer.

I would never dare to play any civ with the Protective trait, so i ll vouch
Saladin as the worst civ.
 
Back
Top Bottom