Skallagrimson
Deity
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2006
- Messages
- 2,043
It's why when I'm not spiritual a late game priority for me is Radio for Cristo Redentor. The spirituality-giver.
Worst Leader?
- Thread starter Slashninja1467
- Start date
thadian
Kami of Awakened Dreamers
sitting bull is the worst. his UU and UB have nothing in common, are both obselete fast and worst of all, he doesn't even start with hunting OR mysticism!
if he started with hunting or mysticism (pref. hunting for reality purposes) i think he would be a million times better.
i could also say that Shaka is bad. really, do you feel anything was accomplished winning with a shaka-rush? and he isn't a good neighbor either. but if your only going by the most pluses, there is a reason the Inca was banned from the HOF quattromaster challenge.
if he started with hunting or mysticism (pref. hunting for reality purposes) i think he would be a million times better.
i could also say that Shaka is bad. really, do you feel anything was accomplished winning with a shaka-rush? and he isn't a good neighbor either. but if your only going by the most pluses, there is a reason the Inca was banned from the HOF quattromaster challenge.
Joshua368
Warmongering builder
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2008
- Messages
- 3,072
Dude Shaka is awesome.
His traits are somewhat mediocre and his UU isn't terribly good for the offensive (better strike before axes at least) but is UB is like the best in the game. An early mini-courthouse that stacks with the regular one, you can expand so much farther with him than usual with less pain on your slider.
mechaerik
Tuturuu!
Shaka is amazing. As Joshua368 said, that barracks reduces your maintenance, and even if its more expensive, Shaka is agg, which means its still cheaper than a non-agg leaders regular barracks. The Impi is a fairly good unit, especially because it can move farther, faster.
Shaka is a warmonger with excellent long-term prospects... his military bonus isn't restricted to a particular era and the Ikhanda is useful right away and can grow to become an extremely strong economic benefit.
Julius Caesar has a similar profile though (warmonger with faster expansion and a cost reduction) and overshadows Shaka for the critical first half of the game.
Julius Caesar has a similar profile though (warmonger with faster expansion and a cost reduction) and overshadows Shaka for the critical first half of the game.
Swein Forkbeard
Nintendo Fan
Can't really decide. Would pick Tokugawa if I had to.
Slashninja1467
Chieftain
- Joined
- May 31, 2007
- Messages
- 58
wow like the first thread i ever made lol.
Turquoiside
Emperor
- Joined
- Jun 18, 2008
- Messages
- 1,552
Tokugawa is a middle-tier leader. His traits have awesome synergy with his uniques. It is odd how many people pick on Toku, but he is easily very good.
Kazbar
Chieftain
- Joined
- May 24, 2008
- Messages
- 62
It probably has something to do with seeing how the AI handles him straight into the dirt every game.
...and the good chance you'll be playing a leader without any perks at all for a good part of the game on high levels. I love a good bloodbath as much as the next guy (who happens to be Monty), but sometimes it's just not practical... say we're isolated or outclassed by Protective neighbours who compulsively settle on hills.
Leaders who don't have anything when we need help the most are questionable.
***
Having said that, there are leaders I dislike more (Sitting Bull and Washington) but I'd say those are objectively stronger because they have something going for them reliably.
Leaders who don't have anything when we need help the most are questionable.
***
Having said that, there are leaders I dislike more (Sitting Bull and Washington) but I'd say those are objectively stronger because they have something going for them reliably.
I don't know why people kept talking about UBs and UUs. We're talking about leaders, not their civilizations. I guess I play unrestricted leaders so it sounds funny to me. 
Toker sucks. His gunpowder units can be pretty nasty, but it's hard to even get there since his traits don't help your economy. Tokugawa can survive if he has some great cottage cities. He requires an expert in good city specialization. As AI he gets destroyed, but partly because he also won't trade with anybody, meaning I rarely see him even get gunpowder unless he gets vassalized. He makes a good buffer to vassalize.
I'd rank the traits as follows, which would allow me to rank a leader independent of their civ:
Financial, Philosophical, Charismatic, Industrious, Creative, Organized, Expansive, Spiritual, Imperialistic, Aggressive, Protective.
So naturally Elizabeth is my favorite, Tokugawa my least.
Though I'd obviously rank aggressive higher while playing zulu, all war traits higher for rome, and organized higher while playing holy rome or sumeria, or while playing on water-heavy maps.
Toker sucks. His gunpowder units can be pretty nasty, but it's hard to even get there since his traits don't help your economy. Tokugawa can survive if he has some great cottage cities. He requires an expert in good city specialization. As AI he gets destroyed, but partly because he also won't trade with anybody, meaning I rarely see him even get gunpowder unless he gets vassalized. He makes a good buffer to vassalize.
I'd rank the traits as follows, which would allow me to rank a leader independent of their civ:
Financial, Philosophical, Charismatic, Industrious, Creative, Organized, Expansive, Spiritual, Imperialistic, Aggressive, Protective.
So naturally Elizabeth is my favorite, Tokugawa my least.
Though I'd obviously rank aggressive higher while playing zulu, all war traits higher for rome, and organized higher while playing holy rome or sumeria, or while playing on water-heavy maps.
smitsk00
plainlyfullofit
samurai are the most useful when upgraded from swords/axes with several promotions. adding first stikes to CR3/4, shock is lethal! Drill 3/4 and CR3/4 Samurai are insanely dangerous, especially if they also have shock.
If you are warmongering all game and running the right civics, this can be done relatively easily. (Barracks + a couple settled generals)
smitsk00
plainlyfullofit
I enjoy Samurai too. Sice Toku should be fighting A LOT, you can usually have all of your new samurai being buil with 3 extra promotions, so they can come out of the gate with C1, Dr1, and 3 more = C1, Dr4 or C1,Dr1,CR3. Both of these are awesome and help make up for Toku being so bad at tech.
smitsk00
plainlyfullofit
Can you tell I like Samurai?
azzaman333
meh
The two worst leaders are Stalin and Toku.
Stalin beats Toku because the uniques are later, although Stalin at least has a sort-of economic trait in IND.
Stalin beats Toku because the uniques are later, although Stalin at least has a sort-of economic trait in IND.
I wouldn't say there is the best civ/leader.
We usually play mp games on duel/pangea/quick, 7 civs (ai fills remaining slots) and with medium turn timer. Horses and stone are quite rare, you can get some weird positions too, sometimes with no military resources... I would rate leder-civs with units that don't need resources a bit higher (for example saladin).
Traits in similar fashion a bit turned around, organized doesn't help all that much. Also creative is nice unless you can't get at least 3 cities down. Someties you are boxed-in and then creative just plain sucks
But as for spiritual, charismatic, expansive and industrious - those always help. To make that 1 wonder faster, to have a bit more health/happiness and to counter that ugly anarchies
Protective (much criticized) is quite good. Everyone will think twice before attacking those cities on hills stacked with protective archers Later on gunpowder its nice too.
I think I illustrated the point - it all depends on the game and the particular situation. But more, it depends on the player, whether you can use what is given or not. If you cannot then you should pick.
We usually play mp games on duel/pangea/quick, 7 civs (ai fills remaining slots) and with medium turn timer. Horses and stone are quite rare, you can get some weird positions too, sometimes with no military resources... I would rate leder-civs with units that don't need resources a bit higher (for example saladin).
Traits in similar fashion a bit turned around, organized doesn't help all that much. Also creative is nice unless you can't get at least 3 cities down. Someties you are boxed-in and then creative just plain sucks
But as for spiritual, charismatic, expansive and industrious - those always help. To make that 1 wonder faster, to have a bit more health/happiness and to counter that ugly anarchies
Protective (much criticized) is quite good. Everyone will think twice before attacking those cities on hills stacked with protective archers
Later on gunpowder its nice too.I think I illustrated the point - it all depends on the game and the particular situation. But more, it depends on the player, whether you can use what is given or not. If you cannot then you should pick.
Me.
Actually, Tokugawa. Isolationist xenophobe with difficult to use traits. AI or myself, he's equally hopeless.
salty mud
Deity
I always find Monty's Agg/Spi and Shaka's Agg/Exp traits useless. I don't find the Aggressive trait useful in the slightest. While useful, the Spiritual trait isn't the best of traits and expansive could also be better.
Andvare
King
- Joined
- Sep 14, 2007
- Messages
- 788
Charlemagne.
If only he didn't have his top three UB (whether or not it's the strongest is up to debate, but I doubt that many will claim it isn't one of the best UBs) and his very powerful UU, he would win this.
Traits? Eww. Starting techs? The worst combo IMHO. Nothing to help early expansion.
If only he didn't have his top three UB (whether or not it's the strongest is up to debate, but I doubt that many will claim it isn't one of the best UBs) and his very powerful UU, he would win this.
Traits? Eww. Starting techs? The worst combo IMHO. Nothing to help early expansion.
Similar threads
