Your 3 Best and 3 Worst (in preparation for Civ5)

[The Almighty dF]

I know many of us are now going through and trying to, for completionist sake, get really good at our worst characters.
So, with this thread, I figure we can help each other out.

List your 3 best leaders and how you normally use them, then the three leaders you suck at.
This way we can sort of share leader-centric suggestions.

I'll start us off:
1. Ramses
Prepare to go isolationist. Prioritize wonder techs and techs that benefit only your empire, don't bother too much with military beyond protection. Build two chariots per city just to use against barbs, though personally I'd recommend building The Great Wall.
Ramses is to wonders what Wang is to technology. Turtle and wonderspam. Grab a religion (maybe found your own, though I wouldn't) so you can use Org Religion.
Make sure to set one city as a major wonder city from which Great People can come from, making a sort of wonder-based specialist economy.
Use Slavery until Caste becomes available. Also use Hereditary Rule (not representation), Organized Religion (switching into Theocracy if anyone decides to go for you), and Beauracracy.

2. Qin Shi Huang
Same as Ramses, only he's much better at defending himself, but he can't really utilize the Theocracy/Org switch. Also, while Ramses can use his wonder-economy for Space Race as well as Cultural, I'd recommend going for just a Cultural victory with Qin.
His UB combines so well with his wonderspamming in terms of getting three cities up to legendary that it's not even funny.
Also, protective + his UU means that by the time the Cho's become available, nobody'll want to screw with you (besides maybe Monty, Toku, and a few of the other leaders that don't think ahead.) Don't forget his -beautiful- starter techs. I'm willing to say that, excepting the Incas, China has the best starter tech pairing.

3. Joao
Beeline to BW, make your build order Worker, Worker, Settler. Use workers to chop the settler, build a barracks, a warrior, then chop out another settler. Get Pottery, build a cottage, chop out one more settler. Focus on building up your four cities, go for a cottage economy, then at 80% gold-to-beakers release three more settlers.
Joao is a REX -god-.
Just remember the rule for large empires: 1.5 workers per 1 city.
His best victory? Anything. Except cultural, I guess. He doesn't really have anything that helps that. But with the huge empire Joao can easily get, the other victories are easy.


My three worst:
1. Saladin
2. Tokugawa
3. Mao

 

[bobbyboy29]

Definately need this thread, some leaders i can't seem to win with, some I can't seem to lose with.

1. Mehmed. Rex and Rex hard, coastal cities are especially great with him, you can afford it with Org and Exp speeds the Rex up. Then, you realise that although your new cities need granary, courthouse, hammam, (lighthouse and harbor for coastal) all these buildings come cheap! Now use those hammams to grow your cities super big, grab steel from lib and go drafted jans plus cannons(upgrade from trebs its super cheap!) whilst your neighbour only has longbows. Game over.

2. Asoka, love him as a warmonger. Fast workers and my favourite trait ORG help you set up a nice base but the main trick is to use SPI to cycle into and out of war time civics (made more affordable by you guessed it: ORG, I love the synergy here). Between Spi and his UB you shouldnt have too many WW or unhappiness problems leaving you free to fight war after war with little down time.

3. Darius, I'm sure most people can do a better job than me explaining the sheer awesomeness of this leader but essentially all you need to do is use his aptly named immortals to "settle" more cities than you could normally afford. Then just sit back and watch as despite overexpansion, your economy just refuses to crash. The UB also helps a lot i find in the industrial era when health becomes a problem.

Ok so obviously i just love ORG, the main thing to remember is that it makes powerful but expensive civics (like bureau and OR) much more affordable and useful, however it has reverse synergy with civics like Pacifism (but you can still use it if you really need).

OK and the 3 leaders I need serious help with are:
1. Gilgamesh (I can rush with vultures and then build zigs but after that I'm like now what? I have no UU, UB and my traits are practically useless!)
2. Izzy (Starting techs hurt and I never seem to be able to get an economy up or utilize her traits, especially SPI)
3. Sury (He should be awesome and fun but it just hasn't ever clicked with me)

 

[mariogreymist]

1. Mehmed. Like Bobby said, rexing with Mehmed is an experience second only to Joao. Those cheap workers chop out settlers like no one's business, and all the cheap buildings are helpful for expansion and available relatively early. The UB is one of the best in the game, and the UU frightening if you get it with a tech lead (though not much better than the base musket if you get there at parity)

2. Darius...Agan, Bobby's on the money here. Immortals not only let you kill 1-2 neigbors but also make the best settler/worker escorts this side of Guilds and the traits are unbeatable for getting a big economy going. The UB is underrated, imo. While not often discussed among the "best UB" lists, the fact that it comes when it does means intercontinental trade is present or will be soon, (and hence the ability to trade for the useful resources) and makes grocers a must build in all big cities...with that 25% gold further stabilizing the economy. It's not uncommon for me to have twice the second place GNP with Darius. The UB is also useful in maintaining a FM corporate economy when other leaders would have been long since forced to enviro.

3. Isabella. Again, an EXP leader for cheap workers/granaries, making for good rexing. Strong in diplomacy, thanks to SPI. The UU is one of the best mounted ones available, and along with spies can execute an intercontinental invasion with remarkable speed for the era.

My three worst:
Justinian - lousy starting techs, and i never seem to have horses when I play him.
Shaka - Even though I love warmongering, and see the benefit of his UB, I never seem to have great games when I play Shaka.
Toku - Agg/Pro...need I say more?

 

[madscientist]

Three I always get a good game out of

1) Washington
2) Bismark
3) Zara

Three I always struggle with but have won games up to emperor

1) Alexander
2) Wang
3) Boudica
3)

 

[iggymnrr]

So many to choose from for the top three. Three worst might have to be Toku, Toku and Toku. Maybe Izzy is down there too. But Civ 5 will probably have a similar starting leader group to Civ's 3 & 4. Count on 2 expansions recycling content from Civ's 3 & 4 until finished. (Predictable.) I personally wish for a fun scenario like the Fall of Rome in Civ 3's Conquests. What's not to like about that? No unit costs, low corruption, cheap Scourge of God wonder and lots of fighting. Lay down the smack.

 

[Fame Throwa]

I make a point to play every leader, so I don't think there's anyone I really am awful at anymore. I do have a horrible time with Saladin every time though, not only because of his cruddy traits but because I always get the worst starts with him. One time I got a really ugly start with not a hammer in sight. It was all desert or jungle, and there was only room for like 5 cities. Even worse, I was right by Gilgamesh, who had tons of space and managed to get like a zillion cities. It was lame.

Here's who I do well with:
1. Mansa Musa - I go and cottage up and then I found a religion as quickly as possible with all the money I'm making and spread it like crazy, then I get a massive tech lead. Then I either turtle up and win space really early, or I send out hordes of tanks while everyone's still in the dark ages.
2. Brennus - Found a religion and build Stonehenge, and then kick some AI faces in. I also tend to have good luck with him on top of that.
3. Shaka - One reason why I like playing him is because I like unpronounceable city names but that isn't the only one. I spam impis in the early game and just send them out to pillage everyone anywhere near me back into the stone age. Then I promote them and just kill all the AIs, who are all way behind because I just destroyed all their improvements. Also the UB is a big help because I build barracks everywhere anyway.

 

[jwez11007]

1) Elizabeth-some say fin and phi are at odds with each other, but the games i enjoy the most(maps with plenty of coasts) really allow liz to shine. Fin allows a fairly quick Rex along the coasts and Phi get your GPPs rolling in quickly allowing for early settled great people or important bulbs. Plus if you have a good globe city drafting an army of rifles for renaissance wars is a blast.

2) Ghandi-I love Great People so again I prefer a Phi leader. The fast worker is also a nice UU...faster early chops, and it never obsoletes. The spiritual trait allows for easy diplo or fast build ups or recoveries before or after wars. Overall I feel he's the most versatile leader I prefer.

3)Greeks-I used to play most of my games as alexander...phalanx rush the nearest neigbors then focus on setting up a solid SE. More recently(when i picked up BtS) I've found I really enjoy shooting for cultural victories with pericles after an early war.

Worst leaders-
1) qin
2) saladin
3) any protective leader besides churchill

 

[LegioCorvus]

I feel bad, because top 2 best are pretty obvious:

Best:

Julius Caesar

Everyone knows this strategy. Use IMP to get out quick settlers and REX the best positions. Beeline Iron Working. If iron is not in your cultural borders, use IMP to make sure you get it. Build Praetorians. Build more Praetorians. Conquer your closest neighbor, while beelining Construction. Put all your extra GGs from IMP in your military city.

ORG makes that initial REX easier on your economy, and unlike FIN, works immediately in cities you conquer. Courthouses are also cheaper, and should be the second or third thing you build in newly conquered cities. I always use Julius Caesar when I'm going up a difficulty level.

Elizabeth

Strategy depends on the terrain, but coastal starts make this a run away tech victory. REX or early rush, depending on terrain, but focus on high commerce cities while not neglecting production. If possible, go for Oracle or Great Lighthouse for GPP (again, depends on terrain). Like jwez11007 said, once Nationhood comes along, go crazy with Redcoats in a Globe Theater, high food city.

With Lizzy, you either come out strong and go hard on tech, or you play an above average game with a Renaissance bonus. Not quite the versatility of Asoka, but it gives me my second highest win rate.

Willem von Oranje

FIN has it's obvious advantages with REX and researching techs. CRE is good for blocking out land & newly conquered cities. East Indiaman can carry 4 units instead of 3 (good for expansion & conquest), has a strength of 6 (again: expansion & conquest), and can explore rival territory. That's a very decent UU. The Dike gives every coastal city with a river the Moai Statues. That's very good.

Like Lizzy, he dominated on coastal starts, and does above average otherwise. I'd have put Qin or Ramses II here if I did more cultural victories, but as it is, I do my third best with WvO.

Worst:

Tokugawa

For obvious reasons that don't need to be explained here. Not bad in Vanilla.

Boudica

Try as I might, I just can't get a decent win rate out of her. I almost think it's a mental block at this point.

Saladin

Can't work any tiles at start. Mediocre UB & UU. I'm sure there's a winning strategy with him, but I've not found it.

Honorable mentions to Charlemagne & Justinian I.

 

[dingding]

I haven't played all the leaders yet. Since I've played a great deal with PHI or FIN leaders before, I think quite a lot of leaders with the same trait of these two are relatively similar. So personally to play as Victoria or WoV doesn't make much difference, both seem to be normal and even banal to me.

Those leaders who make the game exciting and interesting to me can be:

1) Toku. Sheer traits of warmonger. I took me much time to learn how to deal with this guy but once I understood, I fell in love with Japan
2) Isa. Good traits + uu + ub. Religion Gambit is quite funny with her.
3) Cathy. Let's keep pressing our neighbors!

Leaders I feel less at ease with. One of the reasons is that I always disable the huts, that's unfair for the civ with Hunting at the start and makes it more difficult.

1) Justine.
2) Brennus.
3) Saladin.

SPI is not the problem. Finally I find I pick two leaders with Hunting + Mysticism. Well maybe I shouldn't have disabled the huts with them...

 

[Negator_UK]

I play the same leader until I get 2 straight wins, then move on.

Darius - Played 2 won 2 IIRC.
Gilgamesh - lost 2 then won 2.
Ghandi - lost 15ish, won 1, lost the next 3, 50/50 will win the one I'm playing.

Others I played last year.

Peter - I sucked but got 2 eventually.
Cathy - Like peter, but less so.
Stalin - got 2 straight fairly quickly, Agg + wonders I s'pose.....

I guess I'm just not the Philo type....

 

[Absolute Zero]

Do Rome and Inca count? I can win games easily using their UUs, but so can anyone else, so that's not really a "personal" choice.

Apart from those two, my top three leaders, based on my experiences and not on logical reasons, are:
1) Qin. I just seem to do well with him, especially on the Earth maps but also elsewhere. I get great rewards from huts, great starts, etc. although I never make much use out of his Protective trait.
2) Suryavarman. I also seem to get lucky with him, in huts and events. Also (on the more logical side) I can often take the lead in land area with CRE and have high-pop cities with help from EXP and Baray.
3) Hannibal. FIN + CHA are solid traits, Hannibal does especially well with coastal starts. I just seem to do well with him in general.

Worst three:
1) Any Russian leader. There's practically nothing about the Russian civilization that I like. They start with Hunting, a tech I often ignore and rarely need. Their UU is somewhat late and isn't much better than a normal cavalry, and their UB is too late to make a difference. And I don't like any of the Russian leaders' trait combos.
2) Tokugawa. Like others have said, AGG + PRO isn't a good set of traits.
3) Either Indian leader. I play on Marathon so the Fast Worker is not that great, and I play on Prince level so SPI isn't as useful as it is on higher difficulties.

 

[CivilizedTiger]

I've quit way too many games to be able to name enough good leaders for me, but... I can at least nominate number one:

1. Willem van Oranje - I love the creative trait, it saves me the trouble of early mysticism and offers great early expansion prospects. I also love the financial trait, and I really like the UB. In fact, of all the UBs, I think I only like Carthage's more. Willem is the only leader I've won more than one game with (I've won two , including my first monarch win); there's not much to say about strategy: expand, cottage spam, grab some land from others using superior tech payed by the fin cottages, aim for early liberalism, followed by very early emancipation and universal suffrage, rush buy banks, then rush buy either units and capture the world, or infrastructure and aim for something else.

I also like Willem van Oranje's real counterpart. In fact, I'd go so far as stating that his favourite civic (his favourite civic in game is based on his principles in real life), freedom of conscience, is basically responsible for dragging Europe from the mud of the dark ages into the renaissance, as the freedom of conscience (and, of course, the freedom of expression) which he promoted ensured that a great deal of brilliant minds migrated to the Netherlands and where a lot of great minds meet and are free to express themselves... I also appreciate that he was true to the cause of freedom of conscience and that he supported it both in places where the catholics were more, and in places where the protestants were more.

2. Hannibal - I think he's one of the easiest leaders to play as. Great traits, one of them considered overpowered, the other one ensuring early lead in all departments thanks to slightly larger cities, plus all game military advantage. Carthage's UU is something I've never used, so far, as it requires two techs I really dislike, but her UB is simply awesome. It is available very early on and offers a huge economic boost. And if it's paired with the Great Lighthouse, it's just too much.

3. Pericles - I'm nominating him here more to express the fact that, along with Willem, he's one of my favourite leaders. I love the creative trait, and I like the philosophical trait quite a lot. Unfortunately, I haven't yet figured the SE out, but I have used the phi trait to go for a culture win. I think I'll be better with this leader once I learn more about the SE.

Worst leaders (that I would actually consider playing as)
1. Tokugawa (might be very strong in the mid-game, but only for warring reasons (and even then, with unrestricted leaders, some others would be far better leading Japan); the thing is, I'm not that keen on warring unless I have a tech advantage; I'm more after the economic side of the game, and not having a tech lead through most of the game is not to my liking; Toku's traits offer nothing towards tech prowess)
2. Alexander - might be good SE warmonger, but I'm currently bad with SE; and even if I weren't, I'd prefer Lincoln's Cha for SE warring;

 

[Gocho]

I feel bad, because top 2 best are pretty obvious:

Best:

Julius Caesar

Everyone knows this strategy. Use IMP to get out quick settlers and REX the best positions. Beeline Iron Working. If iron is not in your cultural borders, use IMP to make sure you get it. Build Praetorians. Build more Praetorians. Conquer your closest neighbor, while beelining Construction. Put all your extra GGs from IMP in your military city.

ORG makes that initial REX easier on your economy, and unlike FIN, works immediately in cities you conquer. Courthouses are also cheaper, and should be the second or third thing you build in newly conquered cities. I always use Julius Caesar when I'm going up a difficulty level.

Elizabeth

Strategy depends on the terrain, but coastal starts make this a run away tech victory. REX or early rush, depending on terrain, but focus on high commerce cities while not neglecting production. If possible, go for Oracle or Great Lighthouse for GPP (again, depends on terrain). Like jwez11007 said, once Nationhood comes along, go crazy with Redcoats in a Globe Theater, high food city.

With Lizzy, you either come out strong and go hard on tech, or you play an above average game with a Renaissance bonus. Not quite the versatility of Asoka, but it gives me my second highest win rate.

Willem von Oranje

FIN has it's obvious advantages with REX and researching techs. CRE is good for blocking out land & newly conquered cities. East Indiaman can carry 4 units instead of 3 (good for expansion & conquest), has a strength of 6 (again: expansion & conquest), and can explore rival territory. That's a very decent UU. The Dike gives every coastal city with a river the Moai Statues. That's very good.

Like Lizzy, he dominated on coastal starts, and does above average otherwise. I'd have put Qin or Ramses II here if I did more cultural victories, but as it is, I do my third best with WvO.

I agree with these 3 for me with "maybe" HC thrown in instead of Willem who I might sneak down to 4th.

Worst is anyone with protective as it's just a waste of a trait for my style of play.

 

[NihilZero]

Can't give an athoritative answer as there are some leaders I haven't played with yet, and a few others I haven't finished a game with yet (that is to say I've played them, but things went so badly early on that I abandoned ship so I didn't play them enough to get any kind of feel for them).

So with a pinch of salt, I can state my top two leaders:

Darius - played this guy twice, on Emperor and Immortal. Both games were almost embarrassingly easy. He's basically overpowered, but the Persians are just so great to play with that we forgive him. Playing with Darius is like -1 difficulty level.

Ramesses - only used him once, on Immortal, but hot damn he kicks ass. I won domination by destroying everybody with War Chariots and then whatever else seemed appropriate in later eras, but he can also win by building massed wonders. A dangerous man indeed, and a snappy dresser to boot.

Thing is though, both these leaders owe a lot to their civilisations. Egypt and Persia are both innately good due to their awesome early rush onslaught. Some leaders are gimped by their association with lame civs. Take Brennus for example. Great leader, bad civ.

 

[alhill]

Never feels like anyone talks about Louis XVI, but he's my favorite leader. I think he's particularly good for players at the noble-monarch level, who maybe aren't as good as honing a very precise victory plan. Louis can wonder-spam, rex, and fight, all at the same time, and his UU is decent and UB is better than average. All my best games are with him.

My worst leader is definitely Julius Caesar. I get so fixated on prets, that I often end up trying to put a square peg into a round hole. Even when successful, I bomb my economy, but I usually end up with a big mess. I do better with Augustus.

 

[Bandobras Took]

Best:

Louis
Roosevelt
Qin

Worst:
Isabella
Justinian
Ragnar

 

[oppy]

1. Darius - I remember struggling with Monarch, refusing to play a financial civ. Finally I gave in and chose Darius. Darius is impossibly strong. I think bobby hit the nail on the head when he said Darius's economy refuses to crash regardless of how aggressive you play.

2. Elizabeth - Amazing UU and UB. She techs to democracy with the GPs and financial for emancipation and universal suffrage amazingly fast. Once she gets rifles and steel, you buy rifles and cannons, completely possible with the UB and financial, and never need to tech again. Completed unrivaled in that era.

3. I'm really torn here. While Darius and Elizabeth are far ahead of every other leader, no one really stands out from the pack to take #3. Some guys stand out from the pack in certain situations:
Julius in maps with many civs
Willem in maps with limited land and lots of ocean
Ghandi can be brutal but really map dependent i find

Worst:
Sitting Bull
Toku
Charlemagne
All protective, terrible UU, and make really boring games.

 

[ICNP]

Best-
Qin- Is there anything not to love about him? Get Great Wall, Get Oracle, Get Machinery. Then turn the sky into arrows with Chu-ko-Nus

Ragnar- Might have been the Euro map, but this guy is awesome. Rush, and turn the land into sweet sweet cottages

Churchill- He really brought out the war monger in me, and it was funnnnn...

Bad
Hannibal- I don't get this guy. He has 2 awesome traits, but everytime I play him Zara wipes the floor with me.

Toku- Dude, where the Tech?!

Don't really have a 3rd. So I'll just say Zara, because I hate him.

 

[NihilZero]

That last post reminds me of who the other of my top three is:

Zara Yaqob - He's good out of the gate with creative, and as creative starts to fade out of the picture a little, org just gets stronger and stronger. He is very flexible and can win any way you choose. Another guy who seems to make the game easier.

 

[Outlandish]

My best 3 have to be:

1) Willem. Don't know what it is about creative, but it seems to make every game I play just that much easier. I look at the trait and think others would be much better, but I do best with creative all the time.

2) Mehmed. My favorite rexxer, I can't remember the last time I lost with him; though I haven't tried him on Immortal yet; suppose I should if I want that first Imm win.

3) Zara. Combine my strongest trait with Org to make up for my typical overexpansion, I don't play him anymore as I got Zara'd out after a big win streak.


As for worst, I'm going to ignore Toku who has to be an almost universal pick, and list the ones that frustrate me most as I feel I should be able to win with them but it never seems to work out:

1) Napoleon. I've sunk more time into this guy than any other leader at Emperor, and don't believe I have a single win to show for it. Cha/Org are not bad traits and I honestly don't know what I'm doing wrong; I have trouble with most of the Cha leaders and don't feel I should.

2) Sury. Creative is my strongest trait and Exp is great, yet I almost never get a win with Sury. Most of these games end up with me out-teched badly. If I tech I can't keep up with the military, and if I get enough troops to keep the evils at bay I'm always way behind in tech and can't afford to expand anyway. Very frustrating.

3) Justinian. The most interesting leader I can't seem to buy a win with. I like his UB and UU just from flavor standpoints they seem cool to me but my games as him are inevitable washouts; either no horse to be seen or something going wrong. I have to play down a difficulty level to enjoy him.