Worst Leader

[obsolete]

I'm sure there will be an arguement on which leader is the BEST. But now I"m thinking we can come to a consensus on which leader is the WORST.

I think John Adams pretty much sums it up.

+25% liberty bells.

Hmmmmm.

With how the current system of bells works, is that wise? So the Kings forces ramp up on you that much faster... that's smart? Now, lets assume you avoid your townhall for ages, and decide to only produce bells at the last minute. That means, you still played most the game with basically a missing trait. At least you could have picked someone like the French to get a militaristic trait which starts from the get-go, and lasts indefinitely, which NO increase to the REF, despite it actually can help combat vs the REF(and other bad buys).

 

[Coral]

The more liberty bells you get, the faster you get to the revolution. The faster you get to the revolution, the less time the king has to build up troops.

 

[isi]

Agree with Coral, true is that system is flawed and you must start revolution on 50%, but there is not dissadvantage that you get there faster. You can start acumulating bells whenever you want and you will need less statesman which is most expenive specialist and you get FF faster, so I would say quite opposite, it is not best (that belongs to Samual del Champlain), but is ok.
Worst is Simon Bolivar, +25% against native is minor and is much better to cooperate with them. Full bonus for rebel sentimen sounds good, until you realize that you need start revolution at 50%, bonus counts only on city defense and royal artirely have power 4 and +150% bonus on city attack (= 10), so your city defense with poor 3 power canons is always worse even with all defensive bonuses. You really need cavalry and attack, not sit and defend.

 

[Andvare]

Bolivar, worst? What have you been smoking?
The bonus does *not* only count on defence, that is a flaw in the Civilopedia.
And it's certainly not better to cooperate with them, as small empires have an easier time killing the REF. Well it can be, but it depends on how you play the game. Besides, that is a Spain bonus, and not strictly a leader bonus.

Edit: One the other hand, the number of liberty bells you require to become a rebel is the same, but it's marginally better to produce a lot each turn, then a little each turn, so John Adams' bonus is useful, but not very.
I'd rate him as one of the weakest leaders.

 

[The_Dwarf]

My vote goes to Arian Van der Donck.
However I think they are all pretty close.

 

[lavos]

Donck for me as well. Not because he is weak, but because the other Dutch leader is so much better.

 

[isi]

Bolivar, worst? What have you been smoking?
The bonus does *not* only count on defence, that is a flaw in the Civilopedia.
And it's certainly not better to cooperate with them, as small empires have an easier time killing the REF. Well it can be, but it depends on how you play the game. Besides, that is a Spain bonus, and not strictly a leader bonus.

Unfortunately I did not smoke anything, I run out of my weed, but authors of this game cleary did, because Civilopedia is misleading or completly wrong on so many things. I checked my games and yes you are right, problem is I played with other leaders and you get bonus for actual sentiment -50%. So when I started revolution on 50% I did not saw any bonuses and after that did not pay so much atention and just believed to civpedia, my bad. With attack bonus is of course quiet opposite and Bolivar is probably best.

 

[Andvare]

Unfortunately I did not smoke anything, I run out of my weed, but authors of this game cleary did, because Civilopedia is misleading or completly wrong on so many things. I checked my games and yes you are right, problem is I played with other leaders and you get bonus for actual sentiment -50%. So when I started revolution on 50% I did not saw any bonuses and after that did not pay so much atention and just believed to civpedia, my bad. With attack bonus is of course quiet opposite and Bolivar is probably best.

Yeah, between the rebel sentiment and the artillery, it's better not to read the civilopedia in most cases.

 

[Blackmantle]

Currently: Any colonial leaders the AI is playing...

Honestly, the game is winnable by any leader just the same without huge differences. On Paper they all whould have their uses i guess. If and when the game will be balanced. (Which might also very well change the value of bells.)

 

[Gliese 581]

Do we count everything for each leader?
By that I mean french leaders get a hardy pioneer besides their traits. Spanish leaders get a veteran soldier and dutch leaders get a merchantman.

I think the worst leader is probably George Washington with the current system. You want to build bells only late and then fast which Adams help you with. Soldiers are mainly good for being defensive in cities but I'd rather attack the AI before they attack me, be it on sea or land, or let them take a settlement then retake it.
With horses being dirt cheap and dragoons having +1 str I'd rather have an army with no soldiers so in that case both GWs traits are largely irrelevant (crosses being weak imo) and england gets no special starting unit.
Ironically I played GW in my first game thinking he would be the best.

 

[obsolete]

Infantry are not TOO bad if you can grab both Dom Pedro and Paul Chomeday.

 

[lavos]

...which you should, since AI is incompetent.

 

[Sashimi917]

The French leader with Grenadier promotion, how often would you assault a settlement? Native settlement you say? The Cannons with 100% assault bonus already owns them with little trouble.

 

[Andvare]

If you fight against the Europeans late, or if you let the REF take a city before you take it back, then he is quite good. It's just that the AI is so poor that his bonus is poor.

It really depends on how you play. Some are good, no matter how you play (Bolivar and Stuyvesant), some are great for one style of play (Champlain, huge empire style, San Martin for a large standing army, Frontenac as mentioned already).
I'd put Bolivar, Stuyvesant and Champlain in tier one (perhaps only Bolivar, he just just that strong), San Martina and Washington in tier two, and Frontenac and Adams in tier three. Adams is stronger with a large empire (still crap though), and almost completely useless with a small one. Champlain is also useless in a one or two city game, a bit the same with Washington, his bonus is only valuable for larger empires, more so because you will always want to have at least one production city, and producing enough weapons two times over for a small empire is easy.
Stuyvesant I think is great, but I haven't played around with him to say if I could feel the difference, or to what extent that would be (more cannons, for sure).
Bolivar is bloody great, a potential of giving you, in effect, a third more soldiers for the same price is fantastic (a third, because you'd already be at 150% for his full potential to work), and making your SOLs on par with the Man-O-Wars can also do wonders.

 

[The_Dwarf]

I think the worst leader is probably George Washington with the current system.

Absolutely not, get all defensiv upgrades and FFs for defense like +25% and free Minuteman promotion and then his bonus is pretty damn strong.

 

[dalgo]

My vote goes to Arian Van der Donck.

I won my first game with Donck so am biased. He gives 100% time between tax increases. That's pretty powerful for a trading game, especially when you are sending a full galleon to europe every turn. I declared with $75,000 available to buy more troops if needed.

 

[Moxx]

I think Arian Van der Donck has a great potential for very high scores since your game score is directly based on your tax rate. A rate of 50% means you score is half what it should be. (I think the formula is (FF points + Land points) * tax rate and then normalized at the end) I had a game on Conq difficulty with him and my tax rate was a tiny 28% when I did my declaration around turn 200. Not to mention the thousands you save on taxes over the whole game.

 

[The_Dwarf]

Hmm didnt know that, of course that changes some things
I guess no leader is really weak and the balance here is pretty good.

 

[Andvare]

I think Arian Van der Donck has a great potential for very high scores since your game score is directly based on your tax rate. A rate of 50% means you score is half what it should be. (I think the formula is (FF points + Land points) * tax rate and then normalized at the end) I had a game on Conq difficulty with him and my tax rate was a tiny 28% when I did my declaration around turn 200. Not to mention the thousands you save on taxes over the whole game.

If that is true, one could sell everything over the warehouse and end with a tax in the 2-8% range (or less).

 

[isi]

I was wondering why I'm always back with score when I have clear lead in other graphs and have bigger land mass. So in game that is from half about trade with Europe, you score is subsrtacted for it, bright idea, lol.