Worst Leader in Warlords?

[MD-GG]

Now I know that we all know that all leaders can be good in the right hands...


but really..


which one is the crappest from your perspective?

 

[Truronian]

Roosevelt, IMO. Average traits and late Uniques.

 

[PMabey]

either of the americans or bismark

 

[FullyCompletely]

You have to have been sniffing glue to think Louis is among the "worst"

IMO, Mao Zedong. Protective and Expansive are my two least favourite traits, the Chukonu isn't that powerful, the UB is pretty good, though.

 

[floppymoose]

I'm a big Chukonu fan. The nice thing about the Chukonu is that once you have a few cats, all you need to fight your war are Chukonus. Take down defense with Cats, then suicide Chukonu attack. Never suicide the cats. Rinse and repeat. This makes the whole supply pipeline of units for your offensive so much easier, because you are only ever building one unit. This works because the Chukonu is a good defensive unit to protect the cats, and also a good city taker, and also a good open field attacker. Just mix your promotions to match the opponent.

 

[Koelle]

Mehmet is the worst

 

[snipafist]

Mao became god-awful and it really bothers me, as he used to be one of my favorites. Not only are his traits not very good together (two secondary traits), but they don't really fit his personality well either.

 

[FullyCompletely]

IMO, protective is the most useless trait in the game. You pick it if you're playing to lose. Thoughts? I think another bonus needs to be added to the "protective" trait to make it more useful. For example, wasn't the "charismatic" trait planned to be without the "+1 happiness" initially but was changed?

 

[jimbob27]

Charismatic was originally planned to give 2 happiness, then it was decided that it'd be stupidly overpowered, and the reduced it to 1 and gave it the military bonus as well.

I don't think protective is a bad trait at all. Free first strikes for gunpowder units is huge, and the added city defence is good as well. You need less city defenders, so you can concentrate more of your production on attacking units. The added city defence for gunpowder units means you can take a city with riflemen and grenadiers, and they'll be able to resist any counterattacks a lot more effectively than they would if they didn't have the added city defence. It means you can take a city with less units, because you don't need to worry about your precious attack units being killed in a counterattack.

 

[cairnsy44]

I actually have had some of my best games as Bismarck and Roosevelt. Though I enjoy being Hannibal a lot too.

 

[asabahi]

churchill, the traits do not work together very well IMO. Usually he is pretty weak in my games and easy to beat up on.

 

[cairnsy44]

but to answer the actual question, I think that the worst I have come across is Isabella. I just struggle with her. though I do like the UU.

 

[Mr. Civtastic]

Though it pains me to say it as a patriot, its gotta one of the American leaders. I think its a toss up between them simply because their UB is something I almost NEVER build, and the Seals, while a unit I enjoy (their healing ability helps with invasions...you dont have to slow down to heal) it just comes late in the game. Sometimes I say Roosevelt because Industrious isnt so helpful in the midgame...sometimes I say Washington because you'll be warring without your UU for quite sometime.

I also am not found of Asoka, and cosider him to be just as bad as the Americans. I consider Organized to be a warring trait in that the 1/2 price courthouses are usual for taking new cities, while the 1/2 civic cost I never feel is that valuable. Asoka doesnt have a warring trait or UU, so Organized is lost on him. I think his Indian brother Ghandi is much better.

 

[BARBEERIAN]

IMO, protective is the most useless trait in the game. You pick it if you're playing to lose. Thoughts? I think another bonus needs to be added to the "protective" trait to make it more useful. For example, wasn't the "charismatic" trait planned to be without the "+1 happiness" initially but was changed?

I don't think it is, not with the Qin Shi Huang anyway. With vassalage+theocracy and a 2x GG Instructor my Choko's start with Drill IV. It's giving them 4-8 first strike chances, and they take a lot less collateral from enemy cats. Nothing has been able to touch them marching through taking cities with 4 cats promo'd to take down city walls in 1 turn.

 

[sydhe]

Washington and Roosevelt. The Unique Unit and Unique Building both come extremely late, and Seals really aren't worth the wait.

 

[AnsarWarrior]

Mehmet II is the worst? are you kidding me man? I had my first domination victory since Civ PTW with him!

 

[volfan37132]

My vote is Brennus. His UU - Gallic Warrior is a swordsman with a defensive
bonus on hills. His UB - Dun are walls that provide hills defensive bonus to units
built in that city. I do a lot more attacking than I do defending. Unless you
are on a map with a ton of hills and plan on doing lots of defending on hills;
especially swordsmen, I don't see much value here. I don't play that way.
Brennus is Charismatic and Spiritual.

 

[PaganPaulWhisky]

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.

Out of the new leaders, the worst is definitely Stalin. Industrious is God awful. The only thing that makes it slightly playable is the half price forges or low difficulty level. Washington, Mao, and Saladin were severely downgraded and are now very sub-par.

I can't believe someone picked Mehmed. He is one of the best IMO.

 

[Civ4rulesTH]

For me its Montezuma. 2 games in a row he had the lowest score by far before any war was declared so i decided to play as him and I was trashed

 

[cairnsy44]

I forgot about Asoka....LOL....maybe he SHOULD be my worst pick.....