Which Civ, Leader and Why?

[Sartaq]

No leader has creative/industrious combo so I'm going with Kublai Khan - creative/aggresive

[Jon Miller]

I have been Fredrick
Isabella
Peter
and Ghandi

I won with Ghandi (spaceship), lost with Fredrick (but was in first place when my opponents spaceship was launched) and lost with Peter (first game, small island.. didn't have oil or uranium and so was raped by modern boats)

Isabella was a short game (I think was even smaller islands.. didn't have any resources.. so quit after a bit, but wasn't doing well)

JM

[Rosscifer]

I can't stop playing Bismark. I just love industrious and a game without panzers is no game at all.

[polarnomad]

Originally posted by Fried-Psitalon
My next article (which I'll be publishing tomorrow) actually talks at length about the merits of each leader in various situation; sort of a breakdown, civ-leader by civ-leader.

Wow, that's good news!!! I can't wait to read it!

[polarnomad]

@ Fried-Psitalon

BTW where is your article being published? I assumed it was on Apolyton, but I haven't seem any mention of it yet.

Last minute rewrite?

[Arrian]

I've been playing philosophical civs mostly so far, because I'm still trying to figure out great people (how best to get them, use them, etc.) and philo civs get a 100% bonus to their generation.

I've played as India (Gman), Germany (Bismark), Russia (Peter) and Arabia so far.

Well, maybe not "mostly" philosophical civs, but certainly some. I also like Industrious and Spiritual (those who remember me from the early days of CivIII will remember my deep and abiding love of the Religious trait - anarchy sucks, culture rocks!).

-Arrian

[Fried-Psitalon]

Originally posted by polarnomad
@ Fried-Psitalon

BTW where is your article being published? I assumed it was on Apolyton, but I haven't seem any mention of it yet.

Last minute rewrite?

I sent it to Markos, but no joy, I guess. I may have to pull the published form elsewhere out of respect for it unless it's up by the time I get home this evening.

[deKoven]

Hmmm, well, last night (all day yesterday, really) I won space victory with Roosevelt. I've played several games with Julius Caesar but didn't really like him that much. Reason I picked the Romans so often was because they're expansionist and I thought that mattered more. Seems it isn't so much of an advantage as in Civ3.

[inca911]

The Incas have proven excellent for early wars. I prefer to take other's cities rather than spend a lot of time to build my own, especially now that growth is more limited in Civ4.

The Inca start with Mysticism so you can get Buddhism up and running first and into all your cities as a state religion.

You can get the +2 xp from vassalage early in the game, and with Theocracy you get another +2 xp from all your state religion cities. The Inca already get +2 xp from being aggressive, so they get a lot of early promotions. Add a couple barracks and you're cranking out highly promoted, specialized units. The Quechua UU also works will with their 100% bonus against the archers the AI loves to use to defend cities. I've played a few games on Noble and have taken over my continent each time with early wars. It's time to move up a level with this strategy.

[PBN]

I love the philosophers, actually. Been bouncing around, but the strategy I use with them is to try and nail some of the early wonders (+% to GP, unlim), and beeline for Caste System.

Before Caste: pump out Prophets, first to establish holy shrines, then to get the techs.

After Caste: pump out Scientists to found academies in All cities

In the meantime I take the Artists (I always end up with a few) to grab more techs.

Even in late game, I've managed to run with an average 3-4 turns per tech.

Also - with the wonder that adds culture for specialists, I end up being a cultural powerhouse.

[kobo1d]

Arabia fits my playstyle like a glove.

Philosophical: The best trait IMO. Twice as many GPs!

Spiritual: I change my civics so much it is ridiculous.

UU: Camel Archer: I like a late AA/early MA rush. These are useful.

Starting traits: The important one is Mysticism. I get turn 11 Hinduism 90% of the time. The other 10% I beeline for Judaism.

[quinalla]

I am really digging financial right now, I was raking in the cash by the end of the game with financial civs. I also like creative, the free culture in every city is really helpful at the start of the game especially. Spiritual is useful for the no anarchy so you can switch civics back and forth a lot more than without.

Next civ I want to try out is Victoria (fin/exp) because I think the two will be a good combo. Decent cash and extra health to offset extra cities and extra population. I seem to be able to get happiness fairly easily, but health points are harder.

[novakac]

Originally posted by Rosscifer
I can't stop playing Bismark. I just love industrious and a game without panzers is no game at all.

Hear hear!

Not sure if these are good reasons or not, but I've been playing Germany since Civ II. In Civ II, I liked them, if for no other reason, then because they had a lot of city names already in the computer. I hated reusing city names, and I was too lazy to name my own cities.

But the Panzers rock, and the wonder building is really fun.

[padillah]

I have started one game with Hasphetut and one with Aztec (forgot the leader).

I like Hasphetut more for the culture. I'm a culture bomb kinda guy. And the easy access to religion doesn't hurt either.

Tom P.

[Proteus_MST]

Looks like I´m not the only one who is using Germany with Frederick
For one I like it to develop my Civs more scientific than warlike and for the other I especially like my Panzers (hey, with their 50% against Armor they even have good chances to take out modern MBTs )