Worst Leader?

[Muslim]

what does uu and ub mean?

 

[AfterShafter]

what does uu and ub mean?

UU is "unique unit" and UB is "Unique Building"... Such as the Immortal (UU) and Apothecary (UB) for Persia.

 

[DigitalBoy]

Short hand for "unique unit" and "unique building," respectively.

 

[stavka]

I don't see anyone defending Imperialistic, which I definitely avoid. Maybe one of the leaders with this?

 

[eewallace]

Nobody's voted for Isabella as the worst? Both her UU and her UB obsolete almost immediately, and while spiritual is a nice enough trait, she just can't keep up in a lot of games.

(BTW, I've found Huayna Capac to be one of the most versatile leaders. Unlike the earlier poster, I think financial and industrious work fine together, particular in more peaceful games.)

 

[stavka]

Regarding HC, I play him quite oftern. I don't have any problem combining industrious and financial together. I often have 1 (or 2 if my capital is inland) cities dedicated to wonder building with food and mines, and the rest dedicated to commerce (with cottages or the sea), so there really is no conflict.

The quecha is also quite useful if you have Raging barbarians on. I sometimes also use them for choking a neighbouring civ immediately apon contact.

Also HC starts with Mysticism, so if I start next to some good commerce tiles(especially wine) then I might consider grabbing one of the two early religions and then rushing Stonehenge to get the subsequent great Prophet. Obviously that does not scale well with the difficulty level

 

[Slashninja1467]

America's leaders are great, especially Lincoln. Despite how late they come, the UU and UB are actually pretty strong too.

And since when did people consider Aggressive one of the worst traits in the game?

????????????

I haven't checked up on Lincoln but Roosevelt is awful. His starting techs (farming and fishing) isn't good. I find industrious more beneficial in the beginning but not very good overall. It's tough to find the benefit of org until very late. He just has a very poor beginning, the most important part of all. No early archers or axeman for him.

 

[Merkinball]

Worst Leader is the Incan Leader (can't remember his name offhand).

Industrious is a terrible combination with Financial (because you're forced to choose one or the other until you have well-developed cities, by which time the critical early wonders have already been built).

His UU (the Quechua) sucks (basically a warrior with resistance to archers). The attack is obsolete as of spearmen (which EVERYONE gets, real soon), and is wiped out by Axemen (which EVERYONE gets, immediately after spearmen).

His UB (the Terrace) is just downright pathetic. Oooooo... a Granary that produces 2 culture... OOooooo... THAT'LL tip game-balance all right.

Incans suck harder than Spiderman 3.

What? HC is great for just about any victory you want. Access to stone or marble means you can build wonders, get more great people, get more culture. Financial is probably the most powerful trait in the game, and the Huecha's are incredible. They are so cheap, so quick to get out of the box, that you can easily take care of two neighbors before 1AD, and if needs be, 3. He tech's like a maniac, is great with culture with the UB, and wonder building. With financial you can lay off the research bar and concentrate on culture, so he's good for a culture victory. Gaining early room for expansion and careful planning can lead to a massive empire, which can lead to a domination victory as well. Or you can forget about culture, concentrate on research, and cruise to an easy space race. To top it off, he starts off, if you want, founding one of the critical early religions. Which will be established in the capital. Run beuaracracy, build a shrine, build the Spiral Minarette, and you have an untouchable cash capital to fuel a bustling economy.

In my opinion. HC is the BEST leader. Particularly with access to stone or marble. Better than Darius, better than anyone.

 

[dankok8]

It's hard to pick one leader that's the worst but I think its a toss up between Saladin and Catherine with Saladin leading the way. One average trait, one poor trait, a bad UU, and an average UB at best. I guess he can be good for an AP victory or cultural victory with cheap temples and extra priests but certainly not great. The AI seems to do ok with this guy - usually the middle of the pack from what I've seen.

 

[Blaarg]

Nobody's voted for Isabella as the worst? Both her UU and her UB obsolete almost immediately, and while spiritual is a nice enough trait, she just can't keep up in a lot of games.

(BTW, I've found Huayna Capac to be one of the most versatile leaders. Unlike the earlier poster, I think financial and industrious work fine together, particular in more peaceful games.)

Conquistadors used to be nearly unstoppable. (in Warlords/Vanilla only Elephants could counter them, if you didn't have ivory you were at thier mercy) They are still very strong, ecspecially against civs who don't have Ivory or Gunpowder, as they will have no counters for them.

One thing that many people overlook about Conquistadors is that they are a mounted unit that recieves defensive bonuses. Only one of two such units in the game.

 

[Fjordson]

I haven't tried Charlemagne, but his UU and UB both look incredible. Too bad he has the worst two traits in the game.

EXACTLY!, I don't know why you guys are complaining about Saladin, Genghis, Suryavaryaman, or HUYANA CUPAC (WTH?) when Charlemagne has the worst traits by far - as a leader, not connected to his civ - Charlemagne is absolutely the worst trait combo by far. Try Charlemagne of America in an ancient start if you want a real challenge lol

 

[0R4NG3]

I'm gonna say Cathy. I find her very hard to play with on emperor.

 

[Monkeyfinger]

Worst Leader is the Incan Leader (can't remember his name offhand).

Industrious is a terrible combination with Financial (because you're forced to choose one or the other until you have well-developed cities, by which time the critical early wonders have already been built).

His UU (the Quechua) sucks (basically a warrior with resistance to archers). The attack is obsolete as of spearmen (which EVERYONE gets, real soon), and is wiped out by Axemen (which EVERYONE gets, immediately after spearmen).

His UB (the Terrace) is just downright pathetic. Oooooo... a Granary that produces 2 culture... OOooooo... THAT'LL tip game-balance all right.

Incans suck harder than Spiderman 3.

Couple questions: By any chance, do you write for IGN? What is your opinion on Shaka, gameplaywise?

Charlemagne has the worst traits by far

Tied for 3rd worst, actually. Hammurabi's traits are equally as bad as Charlemagne's, while Tokugawa and Genghis have even worse traits than those two. Unlike Genghis and Hammurabi though, Tokugawa and Charlemagne each have a great unique to serve as a redeeming feature. (Charlemagne has a building, Tokugawa has a unit)

 

[Blaarg]

Couple questions: By any chance, do you write for IGN? What is your opinion on Shaka, gameplaywise?



Tied for 3rd worst, actually. Hammurabi's traits are equally as bad as Charlemagne's, while Tokugawa and Genghis have even worse traits than those two. Unlike Genghis and Hammurabi though, Tokugawa and Charlemagne each have a great unique to serve as a redeeming feature. (Charlemagne has a building, Tokugawa has a unit)

I'd say Charlemagne's UU is better than Tokugawas A Melee unit with +100% vs Mounted AND +100% vs Melee? Yes please.

 

[KMadCandy]

I'd say Charlemagne's UU is better than Tokugawas A Melee unit with +100% vs Mounted AND +100% vs Melee? Yes please.

chuck has a sweet UU. but toku can draft disgusting troops. his gunpowder units get combat 1, drill 1, and CG1 for free even without a barracks or wartime civics. i'm not a fan of his UB in "oh my health is terrible" BtS tho.

 

[Legal_My_Deagle]

Toku is terrible, I just for some reason felt compelled to try and win a game with him. I was busting my ass on Noble to try and keep up with tech until I could raise a big enough army to conquer somebody, but both times I was harshly outclassed. One game I waited until I could get a stack of Samurais to war, and by the time I FINALLY got them they were old news compared to the masses of knights I was fighting. The point is that the Samurai is a good UU, but Toku's flaws (namely no infrastructure traits) keep him too behind in the pack on sheer power that by the time you get them, you already feel castrated.

 

[Silence101]

I can't remember off hand who's PRO/IMP, but that's probably the last trait combo I'd look for.

Edit: Oh, it's Charlemagne I see - I guess I'm not the only one that feels this way.

 

[stavka]

I tired Joao a few weeks back and was less than impressed (EXP/IMP, carrack, fetolla)

 

[sydhe]

The carrack's pretty cool if you play on a map with a lot of islands. I understand it's great for Terra as well.

 

[uppi]

Tied for 3rd worst, actually. Hammurabi's traits are equally as bad as Charlemagne's, while Tokugawa and Genghis have even worse traits than those two. Unlike Genghis and Hammurabi though, Tokugawa and Charlemagne each have a great unique to serve as a redeeming feature. (Charlemagne has a building, Tokugawa has a unit)

Hammurabi's traits are as bad as Charlemagne's??? Aggressive and Organized aren't that bad on their own, and together they have good synergy with Organized paying for the land you conquered with your Agressive soldiers. Sure they're not the best traits, but they're certainly not as bad as Imperialistic/Protective