Mao Vs Qin- Which is the greater of the two Chinas?

[monkspider]

As far as civilizations with multiple leaders go, usually one of the two is significantly more popular than the other. For example, most people prefer (for better or worse) Washington over Roosevelt, Elizabeth over Victoria, Kublai over Genghis, etc. Of course, some of the leaders seem roughly equal in popularity (Bismarck and Frederick, Asoka and Gandhi, to give two examples), but one of the more interesting cases of leaders with roughly equal popularity is the case of Mao vs. Qin. China is one of the most powerful civs with it's cho-ko-nu, and each of the leaders contrast each other greatly in playstyle.

If anything, I would say Qin is slightly more popular in the mainstream community, but i have noticed amongst the expert players Mao may be slightly more popular. But even here, opinion is deeply divided. Vel has stated that he prefers Qin, while Arrian prefers Mao.

Clearly, it is an interesting choice. I prefer Mao myself because I tend to rate the industrious trait lower than most players, and I find organized/philosophical to be an interesting combination that provides a lot of choices, even if it doesn't posess as much natural synergy as some combos.

So who does the rest our community prefer?

[fed1943]

Finantial and Organized share the same goal.
The diference comes from Industrious v. Philosophical.
Ind. is just for Wonders; Philo. is just for GP. And I don't feel confortable managing GP (yet).
So, I prefer Qin.
Best regards,

[uberfish]

I like both, I think they're about equally strong. It's a matter of personal preference since Qin often spends the midgame in builder mode grabbing things like the Great Library and Colossus for a power economy, while Mao likes to go on a GP tech fueled conquering spree.

[Generaldoktor]

I've found Mao to be very aggressive as an AI, where Qin flounders. But that's with the dumb machine running him. Qin's traits suit my playing style well and yes, I do like to build Wonders (but also forges.) So I voted for Qin.

[MasterDave]

In general, I prefer Industrious over Philosophical. Philosophical can be a risky pick if you do not get early wonders or you have land that is not high-food producing and friendly to GPP production. Industrious is always beneficial unless you are opposed to building any wonders or forges.

However, on emperor level (I have not ventured higher than this), organized suddenly becomes very important, and I think it may become more valuable than financial. Therefore, it is hard to say which Chinese leader I prefer on emperor level games. On Monarch or below single player, or multiplayer games, I strongly prefer Qin- I believe he is my favorite leader overall for multiplayer (I love sending big stacks of ChoKoNu at human opponents! )

[PaganPaulwhisky]

On monarch and above, I think Mao is definitely the better of the two. I think organized has a slight edge on financial because the maintenance costs get incredibly steep on emperor. Industrious is really an early to mid-game trait only, as you can just buy all the wonders later on in the game. It is useful and helps you get a crucial early game advantage, however it is limited in scope and does not provide much flexibility. Even with this trait the AI will still beat you to many wonders on emperor. Wonders are overrated in this game and so is this trait. Creative is a much stonger early game trait IMO.

originally posted by MasterDave
I prefer Industrious over Philosophical. Philosophical can be a risky pick if you do not get early wonders or you have land that is not high-food producing and friendly to GPP production. Industrious is always beneficial unless you are opposed to building any wonders or forges.

I used to undervalue philosophical, but now it is one of my favorites and always very useful. This trait can really make up for a lackluster start. If you find yourself falling behind GP are the easiest way to catch up and face it, you will almost always be behind on emperor in the early game (at least I am). Philo provides so much flexibility that it really works well with every trait. If you are getting outresearched, then generate scientists to lightbulb expensive techs or assign a bunch of them and go representation. If you want key wonders, then generate and engineer or two. Assign lots of specialists in one city to make a super cash city. A few well utilized GP can make the difference between winning and losing. This trait can be adapted to do almost anything you want. With industrious you can do one thing: build wonders. No comparison, philo blows it away.

[Vynd]

I think both are excellent leaders. Mao is probably the most flexible of the two, so I guess maybe he gets a slight edge over Qin. Philosophical is helpful no matter what you're doing. Organized is at least OK to have under any circumstances and gets increasingly useful the higher your difficulty level or the more aggressive you like to play.

Qin is still very good, though. Financial is an awesome trait. There are times when Philosophical or Organized won't do that much for you but Financial is always helpful. I also like Industrious. If you combine it with the appropriate resources then a good production city can knock off all but the most expensive wonders in 10 to 15 turns. Is that as good as Philosophical or Organized? Maybe not, but it's still nice.

If I was planning on playing a relatively peaceful game on less than emperor difficulty I would choose Qin to Mao. But if I was going into a game with no predefined plan, or one on a really high difficulty, Mao would be my choice.

[MikeH]

They are both great.

Played Mao (I chose random leader) the other day and he got me my first win on Prince.

[Urban Ranger]

Re: Mao Vs Qin- Which is the greater of the two Chinas?

Originally posted by monkspider
If anything, I would say Qin is slightly more popular in the mainstream community, but i have noticed amongst the expert players Mao may be slightly more popular. But even here, opinion is deeply divided. Vel has stated that he prefers Qin, while Arrian prefers Mao.

Well, we'll have to wait for Aeson to state his preferance, then

[joncnunn]

How about this, Tse-Tung in a close race for 2nd place among the Chinese leaders.

[Generaldoktor]

Originally posted by joncnunn
How about this, Tse-Tung in a close race for 2nd place among the Chinese leaders.

From what I have experienced in my short time at Poly, any kind of "banana" is hysterically unreasonably popular. Glad you're all getting your potassium. Now what about plantains?

[Strategist83]

Originally posted by Generaldoktor


From what I have experienced in my short time at Poly, any kind of "banana" is hysterically unreasonably popular.

"Hysterical"?! Don't you dare dismiss the omnipotent banana as "hysterical"!!

ALL HAIL THE BANANA!

[Generaldoktor]

A thousand pardons, Almighty Banana.



Is this spam?

[Shaka II]

I will say that Mao is the stronger at emperor and above, mainly because philosophical is more important than industrious. There really aren't that many wonders that I feel need to be built. I always try to build the Pyramids if I have stone and GL, and the rest are mostly national wonders, with a few like Hanging Gardens, Lighthouse, and Colossus on occasion . I forget if industrious gets 100% bonus on national wonders or is it just world wonders?

But it really depends on the play style too. Obviously, if building lots of wonders was a major part of your strat, like a culture win, then Qin may be stronger. But I play domination games, so I think Mao is stronger. Philosophical gets me that early science lead, that allows me to achieve early military superiority, which is the key, while organized allows me to capture a large empire. Perfect traits for me.

I've played Mao about 4 or 5 times on emperor that are all among my best 10 games. Caesar, Washington, Tokugawa are all strong too. The way I see it, you need one of either the organized or financial traits for domination, to financially support such a large empire, though I've done it without (Persians, e.g.), it's just harder. Then I customize my play to maximize the strength of my secondary trait.

I think one can argue that with national epic and philosophy to run pacifism, that it's fairly good at generating GPs, but one can also argue that building the Pyramids and GL make most of the other wonders along with the industrious trait, not that valuable. Of course, if you don't get stone or marble, your chances are slim that you'll get either (unless perhaps you get a GE from the Pyramids to build it) so in that case industrious would have been nice.

Either one will work fine at emperor. Probably only Aeson knows about deity, but I think he favors philosophical from the other thread.

I'm happy to play immortal now, but can't win above that. But I'm much happier when there is stone and marble as in my game with the Romans. Life is good sometimes, I have both of my favorite wonders, and a large tech lead that everyone is envious of.

[Blake]

I prefer Mao but both are good trait combinations.
I'd actually say that Qin is the best Industrial leader (some points against him for the UU, but Financial has great synergy with Ind).
Mao isn't the best Organized leader but he does have to compete with Tokugawa and Caesar.