Worst Leader?

[The Almighty dF]

He's one of the strongest AIs in the game. He's one of the top AIs to cause a human to quit early, and if his war spree gets on a slight role, he can wind up capping enough people to win UN or with enough land to brute force his way to space through city spam. Probably the only way he'd lose in standard high level games is another AI, possibly his own vassal, going culture.

Only a few AIs ever make me restart early.
Shaka, Monty, both Khans, and Ragnar.
Shaka is, without a doubt, the worst of them.

Worst leader AI goes for Sitting Bull, though. He's... just a complete moron. ...He almost plays historically accurate, in that if you invade him he'll be a couple of eras back.

 

[bestbrian]

I haven't gone back to read what I originally wrote in this thread, but I'm assuming that I crapped all over Saladin.

Nothing's changed; still not a fan.

 

[cracked]

washington is quite good on sea based situations. Extra happyness from charismatic and stronger navy without pentagon. cheap harbours and extra health from expansive. Favours a trade tactic (an easy one to pull off in a good position).

Don't get the ire against creative. Let's you avoid building cultural buildings to pop borders (so can build library instead). Paired with imperialistic (catherine) and is very good for rexing very quickly. Very good in tight spots.

G. Khan is very good for chariot rushes. very good at large open spaces.

I wouldn't say any of the traits are really bad. But some combinations obviously favour certain situations over others. I would also say that none of the leaders are really bad. But there are some I just really don't like playing as. probably 'cos I haven't quite figured out how to play as them yet.

The one that really irritates is Isabella (great combination but poor starting techs, poor UB (obsoletes too quickly unless you forgo economics and doesn't give a great bonus). It forces you to go for state property earlier which is a pain when playing religious tactics. UU is very average.

I also don't like Ragnar (too hit and miss).

And I really don't like Hannibal (his traits don't match his UB which is more expensive)

 

[The Almighty dF]

Been awhile, and I've played more of each leader...

I'd say my top 3 least favorite leaders to play as:

1. Saladin. Terrible UU, protective, but a nice UB.

2. Either Mongolian leader, since it forces you to play one specific way, basically.

3. Mao. I've never really found that good of a way to play as Mao.

Honorable mention goes to the Celts, Tokugawa, and Yara.

 

[Ignorant Teacher]

Honorable mention goes to the Celts, Tokugawa, and Yara.

I'm assuming you ment Zara. Come on, man. He rocks! Creative and Organized? Anytime!

Boudica is more uni-dimensional, but Brennus has, to use MadScientist's expression, dynamite traits.

 

[The Almighty dF]

I'm assuming you ment Zara. Come on, man. He rocks! Creative and Organized? Anytime!

Boudica is more uni-dimensional, but Brennus has, to use MadScientist's expression, dynamite traits.

It's less her traits and more the UU/UB that I hate.
I almost never have a use for that promo. It's not that often I find myself attacking on hills, and it's not very often I find myself in a situation where it's very favorable to build a city on top of a hill.

 

[Pangur Bán]

Do I hear Brennus mentioned as possible worst leader? Try playing at the higher difficulty levels, Brennus is clearly one of the best (though perhaps behind Gandhi and Lincoln). Spiritual means you can constantly change back and forth from pacifism to theocracy, and become the golden boy of the AIs by caving in to their civic and religious requests (changing back to preference soon after) as much as needed. The extra happiness and military power from charismatic is also nothing to turn your nose at on higher difficulties. The UU and UB are top range on certain maps, and are otherwise neither bad nor great.

HC as worst? I'm not normally a cottage builder, but if I play like that HC is one of the strongest, perhaps overpowered. He is scary in the AIs hands, when he on another continent ... it's just a good job the AI isn't any good at exploiting the UU.

As for my answers to the thread ... well, all of the traits are potentially good with synergy. Protective, probably the worst in the human player but good for the AI, is pretty powerful when combined with other combat traits like Agg and Char; Toku is a medium quality leader if you play him right. Charlemagne however sucks based on traits (and the historical ridiculousness of this civ's addition just compounds that). Perhaps a good leader if you're surrounded by Shaka, Montezuma, Napoleon, Alexander and Tokugawa (I would try this some time, but I edited the files long ago to make Charlemagne another German leader). The UB is one of the best in the game, and the UU is decent, so this keeps him off the bottom generally. Gilgamesh would be up there too, but trait synergy and UU likewise save him. And Gilgamesh is no AI you wish to be near in the early era, and creative/protective synergy is truly obnoxious when he is. The AI uses him well.

Catherine's traits are indeed crappy for most of the game, but it is hard to deny her qualities as a rexer at high levels. Her specialist early game is great, even if after this she ain't too impressive.

Definitely not Stalin either. Stalin's traits are high-range medium, and he is by far the best leader for space race win.

I'd say Mao and Joao take some beating for crappiest leaders, and it is definitely between them.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

2. Either Mongolian leader, since it forces you to play one specific way, basically.

Every early unit you can build except chariots and archers gets a considerable buff...and both leaders have a REX trait. You're not forced into one path at all, more like two: war with SOMETHING (any strategic resource will do) or lean heavily on peaceful expansion.

3. Mao. I've never really found that good of a way to play as Mao.

Also an expansion leader though he is somewhat weak. Great starting techs, above average UU, but still not super impressive. A lot more dynamic/consistent than toku though, or even sal (though camel archers are not terrible in a strategy that emphasizes mounted heavily, such is not always viable).

Honorable mention goes to the Celts, Tokugawa, and Yara.

Yara does not exist (in the english release anyway). Zara belongs in a TOP leader list, not bottom. Powerful expansion traits with a punishing UU that is scary on its own and upgrades into some of the deadliest rifles/infantry this side of redcoats (aka big usage window). Celts are pretty weak with questionable starting techs and very lackluster UU/UB typically, but probably above the likes of toku/sal. Along with native america, Celtia does gain easy access to the ever-annoying early superchokepillage GII archers.

Do I hear Brennus mentioned as possible worst leader? Try playing at the higher difficulty levels, Brennus is clearly one of the best (though perhaps behind Gandhi and Lincoln)

What constitutes high? He has pretty good traits but awful starting techs...though CHA does not add to direct military power initially. Use for non-prat swords on high levels is pretty rare, once the AI gets a lot of axes or worse longbows it starts getting painful, hills or not. On certain scripts however a fast push for non-rifle gunpowder blitzes could be interesting.

Charlie's traits are better than toku's and he has better uniques (though the UUs are comparable).

Gilgamesh would be up there too, but trait synergy and UU likewise save him. And Gilgamesh is no AI you wish to be near in the early era, and creative/protective synergy is truly obnoxious when he is. The AI uses him well.

Super early courthouses and a painfully strong UU put him up. It's hard to rate a leader poorly when he's picked for high-level domination games.

Definitely not Stalin either. Stalin's traits are high-range medium, and he is by far the best leader for space race win.

AGG isn't terribly impressive, and IND is middle of the pack. Saying he's the best leader for a space win is so questionable it damages the credibility of the rest of the post. Strong UB aside, it comes late and any FIN leader, PHI leader that applies its early GPP well, or strong expander/early warmonger will post better results than stalin. You don't see him used for the best space win times in HoF, generally, nor do I see a lot of other top players picking him as a good techer.

Joao take some beating for crappiest leaders, and it is definitely between them.

The game's absolute best expander has no place at the bottom, even with a just-ok UU and terrible UB.

 

[Ignorant Teacher]

AGG isn't terribly impressive, and IND is middle of the pack. Saying he's the best leader for a space win is so questionable it damages the credibility of the rest of the post. Strong UB aside, it comes late and any FIN leader, PHI leader that applies its early GPP well, or strong expander/early warmonger will post better results than stalin. You don't see him used for the best space win times in HoF, generally, nor do I see a lot of other top players picking him as a good techer.

All absolutely true. You just forgot to mention that he's one of the funniest leaders to play with. (I know it's just my opinion).

 

[Pangur Bán]

What constitutes high? He has pretty good traits but awful starting techs...though CHA does not add to direct military power initially. Use for non-prat swords on high levels is pretty rare, once the AI gets a lot of axes or worse longbows it starts getting painful, hills or not. On certain scripts however a fast push for non-rifle gunpowder blitzes could be interesting.

Actually, Brennus' starting techs give him the ability to found a shrine (assuming you choose the right tech and the game lacks more than one other mysticism leader), which is useful. And you also start with a scout, and if that gets you mining, you're in the clear for axe rush too. Starting techs aren't such a big deal unless you're on a packed map. Otherwise, spiritual/charismatic is awesome.

Charlie's traits are better than toku's and he has better uniques (though the UUs are comparable).

I disagree. Toku's trait synergy is more impressive. Charlemagne's UB is better by far, but from my own pov I never get to use it as he is a German leader.

Super early courthouses and a painfully strong UU put him up. It's hard to rate a leader poorly when he's picked for high-level domination games.

Yes indeed, the point I was making.

AGG isn't terribly impressive, and IND is middle of the pack. Saying he's the best leader for a space win is so questionable it damages the credibility of the rest of the post. Strong UB aside, it comes late and any FIN leader, PHI leader that applies its early GPP well, or strong expander/early warmonger will post better results than stalin. You don't see him used for the best space win times in HoF, generally, nor do I see a lot of other top players picking him as a good techer.

Super cheap forges, increased ability to get the TGD, and the uber space race building, and you think someone else has better space race qualifications? Yes, I am more likely to win a space race playing Gandhi, but for the space race in isolation Stalin is the best, just like Catherine is the best early peaceful rexer.

The game's absolute best expander has no place at the bottom, even with a just-ok UU and terrible UB.

That's a fair point, and so maybe he's better than Mao. but Catherine is a better early expander and his traits and uniques do suck big time.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Actually, Brennus' starting techs give him the ability to found a shrine (assuming you choose the right tech and the game lacks more than one other mysticism leader), which is useful. And you also start with a scout, and if that gets you mining, you're in the clear for axe rush too. Starting techs aren't such a big deal unless you're on a packed map. Otherwise, spiritual/charismatic is awesome.

Founding one of the first 2 religions is not a facet of any typical high level play I've heard of. In fact it is usually winds up being a weak opening.

Starting techs are not immaterial. They can put you 10+ turns ahead with some starts vs other techs. That could be the difference between a rush succeeding or failing or whether or not you can get that blocking city settled in time.

I disagree. Toku's trait synergy is more impressive. Charlemagne's UB is better by far, but from my own pov I never get to use it as he is a German leader.

Toku does not have good trait synergy until gunpowder. He also has crappy starting techs (usually), no ability to speed his research to actually get to gunpowder, and no trait to aid expansion. His UU comes at a horrible time for high level warfare (and in general) and his UB, while nice, comes late and is only moderate.

Charlie of Germany is admittedly markedly weaker than Charlie of HRE and would be a candidate for bottom.

SUper cheap factories and the uber space race ub, and you think someone else has better space race qualifications? Yes, I am more likely to win a space race playing Gandhi, but for the space race in isolation Stalin is the best, just like Catherine is the best early peaceful rexer.

10+ leaders are better than him for space, including the other russians. Also, IND does not boost factories. That comes from ORG.

That's a fair point, and so maybe he's better than Mao. but Catherine is a better early expander and his traits and uniques do suck big time.

Your insistence that EXP and CRE are crappy traits makes it hard to take the other arguments seriously. Also, with the rate at which new cities come online, Joao can overtake cathy unless most of his cities have to be settled such that they leave good resources until a border pop. Unless >half his cities are like this, it's not plausible to think that cathy can keep up in absolute expansion rate. Joao is picked on occasion by some very good pitboss MP guys on CFC, his traits are actually good rather than "crappy". The only two AIs that belong in the same REX sentence as Joao are Cathy and Sury (sury is frequently left out of that discussion even though he is very good at REX also. I guess people don't like it when their leader looks like an alien).

 

[Pangur Bán]

Founding one of the first 2 religions is not a facet of any typical high level play I've heard of. In fact it is usually winds up being a weak opening.

Starting techs are not immaterial. They can put you 10+ turns ahead with some starts vs other techs. That could be the difference between a rush succeeding or failing or whether or not you can get that blocking city settled in time.

Maybe at Deity or Immortal, but below it is useful if you run an early priest economy and Gandhi is not nearby. It's not the best strategy by any means, but you adapt to the starting techs you got. An early religion that spreads to your neighbours, and early monasteries, temples and priest specialists, can work wonders.

Toku does not have good trait synergy until gunpowder. He also has crappy starting techs (usually), no ability to speed his research to actually get to gunpowder, and no trait to aid expansion. His UU comes at a horrible time for high level warfare (and in general) and his UB, while nice, comes late and is only moderate.

And gunpowder is the age of the rifleman/nationhood rush. He is not the best leader, but for these purposes his power can be seen, and therefore he is not the worst leader.

10+ leaders are better than him for space, including the other russians. Also, IND does not boost factories. That comes from ORG.

That was a slip I picked up on rereading. Cheap forges means you can build other stuff earlier; cheap wonders means you can build the TGD more easily, and the Research Institute is the best space race building. If you are arguing that in a game other leaders are more useful for the general game that leads to the space race victory, then you are missing my point. Stalin is by far the leader best equipped for the space race win per se.

Your insistence that EXP and CRE are crappy traits makes it hard to take the other arguments seriously. Also, with the rate at which new cities come online, Joao can overtake cathy unless most of his cities have to be settled such that they leave good resources until a border pop. Unless >half his cities are like this, it's not plausible to think that cathy can keep up in absolute expansion rate. Joao is picked on occasion by some very good pitboss MP guys on CFC, his traits are actually good rather than "crappy". The only two AIs that belong in the same REX sentence as Joao are Cathy and Sury (sury is frequently left out of that discussion even though he is very good at REX also. I guess people don't like it when their leader looks like an alien).

Expansive is a good secondary trait, but I don't see a synergy with creative ... I've never found creative to be worth sacrificing any other trait save protective. Perhaps there is a way to play this trait I haven't enjoyed that makes creative good, but for me it is one of the worst traits. Different experiences I guess.

 

[Tronicoz]

sitting bull

 

[nbcman]

Sitting Bull in the hands of the AI is not a good leader-but in the hands of a human he is a decent leader. 6 XP archer units with totem pole and barracks-or 10 XP with vassalage/theocracy/settled GG. SB can either turtle up and rex or can take highly drill promoted archery units to attack.

 

[Lansky]

That was a slip I picked up on rereading. Cheap forges means you can build other stuff earlier; cheap wonders means you can build the TGD more easily, and the Research Institute is the best space race building. If you are arguing that in a game other leaders are more useful for the general game that leads to the space race victory, then you are missing my point. Stalin is by far the leader best equipped for the space race win per se.

TGD is a largely useless wonder. A gigantic cost, even with Ind, combined with the fact that any major production center should have had power long ago. The only reason to even possibly considering TGD would be if you don't have Coal or Uranium and you founded your production centers away from rivers. What's with the love for a wonder that provides power eons after it should already be present in every city that greatly needs it?

Expansive is a good secondary trait, but I don't see a synergy with creative ... I've never found creative to be worth sacrificing any other trait save protective. Perhaps there is a way to play this trait I haven't enjoyed that makes creative good, but for me it is one of the worst traits. Different experiences I guess.

Creative is an amazing expansion trait. Expansive is an amazing expansion trait. That's the synergy. Half price Libraries allow early GS only beaten by Philo leaders. The "free" border pops allow waiting on Myst if desired and not using any early production on monuments. All at the same time allowing ideal city placement as even key strategic resources in the first pop are not delayed very long at all. On top of this you will rarely lose a culture border battle with an AI over an important resource tile if you play your cards properly. The icing on the cake is the cheap theaters and colliseums which expedite The Globe Theater and counter mid/late game drafting/war weariness unhappiness very well.

My bias may show however as any leader with the creative trait is immediately above average in my eyes.

 

[Pangur Bán]

Creative is an amazing expansion trait. Expansive is an amazing expansion trait. That's the synergy. Half price Libraries allow early GS only beaten by Philo leaders. The "free" border pops allow waiting on Myst if desired and not using any early production on monuments. All at the same time allowing ideal city placement as even key strategic resources in the first pop are not delayed very long at all. On top of this you will rarely lose a culture border battle with an AI over an important resource tile if you play your cards properly. The icing on the cake is the cheap theaters and colliseums which expedite The Globe Theater and counter mid/late game drafting/war weariness unhappiness very well.

My bias may show however as any leader with the creative trait is immediately above average in my eyes.

TheMeInTeam seems to be a more experienced player than I, so I'll take yours and his word on it. But a trait that can be almost equaled just by building Stonehenge seems pretty sub-rate, and libraries, theatres and colosseums are not exactly expensive either. I'd be interested to see the math on it though. How many turns of regrowth with farms and granaries are saved by whipping a creative library (theatre or colosseum) as opposed to non-creative?

 

[TheMeInTeam]

The faster great person and ability to quickly and soundly wall off the AI from expanding are more important than the reduced cost buildings. Stonehenge comes at the expense of expansion, and its effects are not as fast nor does it press borders like CRE (CRE with a library before 1000 BC will put up 6 culture/turn in the ADs and it will be difficult for the AI to overtake this unless also creative, border resources are yours).

The trait is 100% early game but that's where most games are won or lost, or at least where winning or losing starts taking shape. The *fast* fat cross pop is also useful on maps where your best cities need it ASAP.

 

[Pangur Bán]

I will have to try a creative leader who is not Gilgamesh at Immortal though, and see how well I can do.

Up to and including emperor at least, it is usually possible to steal one or two workers and build another, researching bronze working and achieving stonehenge in very few turns. Unlike creative, this can yield a very early Great Prophet, and a settled Great Prophet is nothing to turn one's nose at early in the game, neither is the early ability to bulb code of laws (another indication that starting with mysticism ain't as bad as it looks if the circumstances are favorable). This Koreans and Maya are good, but Gandhi positively encourages it.

 

[michmbk]

Seeing this thread dredged up and going back and reading how many people put the mongol leaders at the top of the list astounded me - they never would have come to mind for me. I guess if we're talking about the leader in a vacuum without the UB and UU I might consider Genghis. I''d more likely say Tokugawa - he worked fine for me shadowing a noble game a few weeks back, but I remember playing him in one of my first games at emperor and it stunk - took so long to get the economy up that I just couldn't compete with the AI.

Charlemagne is another tough one, even though the UB is strong - he has a tough early economy, and the early game counts so much.

Here's another supporter of creative - building stonehenge or monuments is a hammer sink, and stonehenge can cripple your early expansion, costing you a prime city site that the AI settles while you're building it. The cheap library is also a huge bonus for CRE civs - you can whip them cheaply in 3-4 different cities and run scientists to quickly get great people. Try Pericles with 3-4 decent early food sites and you'll see exactly how awesome CRE can be.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I will have to try a creative leader who is not Gilgamesh at Immortal though, and see how well I can do.

Up to and including emperor at least, it is usually possible to steal one or two workers and build another, researching bronze working and achieving stonehenge in very few turns. Unlike creative, this can yield a very early Great Prophet, and a settled Great Prophet is nothing to turn one's nose at early in the game, neither is the early ability to bulb code of laws (another indication that starting with mysticism ain't as bad as it looks if the circumstances are favorable). This Koreans and Maya are good, but Gandhi positively encourages it.

I would much prefer an early academy, or to bulb philosophy for a powerful trade chip (and also religion).