No messin' around, Who's the BEST leader?

[Rancidlunchmeat]

So nobody plays as Huayna Capac?

I must be doing something seriously wrong then.

Because the combination of aggressive and financial makes perfect sense to me. A large army, half priced barracks so any city can whip a promoted unit out in times of need, and the financial ability to support the army.

Additionally, they start with agriculture and mysticism which means your worker automatically has something to do in most cases, and it also means you're guaranteed your choice of religion through polytheism or meditation (depending on which path you want to go down).

The Quecha isn't the best UU, but it provides a nice insurance policy if you want to bypass hunting/archery and go straight for bronze working.

Well, I guess those are the arguments for HC. I'll sit back and read all the many arguments against him (which must be enough to fill an entire server, since he was left off the list entirely and nobody cared), and maybe through that I'll learn what I must be doing horribly, horribly wrong when I play Civ IV!

[Azuarc]

Originally posted by padillah


No, most all of them have more. My capitol can hae as much as 25000 by then.

Like I said, I'm a culture whore, I'm just not good at it.

Tom P.

I don't even see how that's possible to do *before you get to Drama*. And how do you not simply win cultural victories, if you actually do this?

Sure you aren't adding a zero?

[Bobby Chicken]

Originally posted by Rancidlunchmeat
So nobody plays as Huayna Capac?

I must be doing something seriously wrong then.

Because the combination of aggressive and financial makes perfect sense to me. A large army, half priced barracks so any city can whip a promoted unit out in times of need, and the financial ability to support the army.

Additionally, they start with agriculture and mysticism which means your worker automatically has something to do in most cases, and it also means you're guaranteed your choice of religion through polytheism or meditation (depending on which path you want to go down).

The Quecha isn't the best UU, but it provides a nice insurance policy if you want to bypass hunting/archery and go straight for bronze working.

Well, I guess those are the arguments for HC. I'll sit back and read all the many arguments against him (which must be enough to fill an entire server, since he was left off the list entirely and nobody cared), and maybe through that I'll learn what I must be doing horribly, horribly wrong when I play Civ IV!

Huayana is definitely one of the top 4 leaders in my book (Qin Shi Huang, Washington, and Elizabeth being my other favorites). I asume he would have gotten a large number of votes and more supporters had he been on the poll. And no, or course you're not doing anything wrong. The only argument I can think of against him is that if there are no civs very close to you his special unit is well, bad to be nice.

[Axxaer]

Gandhi hands down.

[jdan]

God, I have to pick one? I like varying it depending on how I want to take the upcoming game. :b

If I'm undecided on my course of actions though, I'd usually take Roosevelt.. Fast wonders, low civic upkeep, cheap forges, fast courthouses. Good all-round, leaving your options open to do a bit of whatever you need.

Ofcourse, having your unique a little bit later in the game (relatively, atleast) gives a bit of issues early on when the conquering isn't that easy. But with decent planning you can get to where you're pumping out units faster than you know what to do with them, so i've never had a huge problem with it. (And whenever I do, it seems the egyptians are always right there to back me up)

For specializing in combat, I go with Elizabeth. The redcoats just rip up if you can get them quickly. They stay good for quite a while, plus they're at just the right era for you to be able to unit pump at a good rate for mass slaughter.

For game where I'm after religion I take Saladin. I actually can't quite say why, aside from that I don't fare well with India (I just don't like my unique being a worker..), and I don't think I've ever played against anyone who uses Isabella and DOESNT get crushed before getting Conquistadors.. She's my no. 1 slaying target.
If I feel particularly spiritually lucky, I take Bismarck and aim in on building the Oracle to get Confucianism.. But that requires some good speed, slack off too much and you'll get beat to it.. Left without a religion of your own.

For culture I go with Catherine. It's not the greatest choice really, if you want full out culture there's better leaders.. But I appreciate the war readiness of the Russians and the Cossack is a decent pumping unit for its era.. I never get my military the way I like it with the other culture civs.

-- These are just what I've done best with, doesn't have to mean they're in any way superior.. And likely aren't. But there's all that personal preference.

[Falconius]

Originally posted by Adagio
I voted for Catherine because she's the best looking leader

Me too! And it's as good a reason as any.

Catherine's so hot, I modded her lines so now she talks dirty to me! I LOVE Catherine!

[Lambiorix_be]

It seems there is no clear winner. I guess the player is more important than the leader :-)

[padillah]

Originally posted by Azuarc


I don't even see how that's possible to do *before you get to Drama*. And how do you not simply win cultural victories, if you actually do this?

Sure you aren't adding a zero?

It's hard to win cultural victories when you keep getting your cities taken. Remember, I'm bad at this game.

As far as 25000 "by the time I get Drama" we also need to remember, I wander around with varrying focus for quite a hile before I think Drama is worth it.

My tech tree usually (i.e. with Saladin) goes:
Polytheism (for Hinduism)
Meditation
Masonry
Monotheism (for Judaism and OR)
Agriculture (farms)
Pottery (cottages)
Mining
Bronse Working (axmen and chop)
Preisthood
Iron Working (swordsman)
Writing (for COL)
Alphabet (Tech trading)
Code Of Laws (for taoism and access to CS)
Mathmatics
Construction (for Catapults)
Monarchy (for access to Feudalism)
Feudalism (for acces to Guilds
Metal Casting (for access to Mach.)
Macheinery (for access to Guilds)
Guilds (For Camel Archer)
Literature (For Heroic and National Epics)
Drama (for access to Music)
Music (For GA)

... as opposed to anything even remotly resembing a set path with Drama and culture as it's endpoint.

It's possible to get that much or more when you're getting +65 or more culture in your capitol (a couple of +10 wonders, the Epics, etc.) and you take 2000 years to discover Drama. (a couple of misused culture bombs don't hurt either)

Currently, playing as Catherine I've got 55,000 in my capitol in 1590AD @ +46cpt (without using a single culture bomb). It is very possible to have 25000 in your capitol, before Drama, if you waste time on other stuff.

Tom P.

[One_more_turn]

Since I used to play on Standard Pangea for Domination, Caesar is the obvious choice. No other civs can chop through enemies as quickly as with the Praetorians. Organized really helps in keeping your conquest, and Expansive lets you grow big quickly.

On higher difficulty levels (>= Monarch), Expansive shines. Health cap hits so early it makes chopping trees highly unprofitable. But with Expansive's +3 health bonus (1.61 Patch), chop away and you have a huge Praets army before anyone realizes what happens. Cheap Granaries are very useful because pop rushes become a lot easier.

Organized also shines on higher levels. Upkeep costs increase so steeply it's very easy to bankrupt your empire. Financial is good, but you need to slap cottages everywhere which takes time and hampers your growth (less food). But you need growth to whip your population.

Now let's talk about Praets. These guys are powerful. Where you get at most 60% odds assaulting cities with Axemen, you get 90+% with Praets. Where Swordsmen chicken out vs Axemen, Praets still beat the crap out of them. Usually when Longbowmen pop up, your axes and swords basically become obsolete. You have to upgrade to Macemen, which requires two expensive techs and costs 75% more to build than swords. But with promoted Praets, you can still eat through Longbowmen defended cities. Imagine how much time advantage and cost savings you got here!

So if you want Domination on Pangea maps, Caesar is your MAN!

[MasterDave]

Originally posted by Bobby Chicken


Huayana is definitely one of the top 4 leaders in my book (Qin Shi Huang, Washington, and Elizabeth being my other favorites). I asume he would have gotten a large number of votes and more supporters had he been on the poll. And no, or course you're not doing anything wrong. The only argument I can think of against him is that if there are no civs very close to you his special unit is well, bad to be nice.

I like Hyuna, as my whine earlier about the thread about his omission reflects. And you and I are not the only ones! In a multiplayer game on Gamespy recently there were no less than three Inca empires out of eight total. Ghandi, Ceaser, and Catherine are also very popular in the multiplayer realm.

[Yahzi]

Azuarc
Games I play with a non-creative leader always become an exercise in frustration whenever I start a new city.

Exactly. Creative is just too strong. You can bust yer arse and build a Wonder that gives all your cities a +1... or you can just start with a +2 for free.

And financial? It starts out great and only gets better.

And the UU comes when you can really use it. In the middle of the game, and strong enough to grab an empire or two before riflemen appear.

Catherine is, IMHO, hands-down the best. I had to stop playing her because she made things too easy.

[Nikolai]

I did a game as Catherine last week, my first with her. I think I must reevaluate which leader I like most. I totally owned the entire game in a way I've never done before.

[zorbop]

Huayna Capac (incans)

Assuming the best leader has financial, this limits you to a few select civs. Of these civs Incans probobly have the easiest start. While they have a crappy UU, I feel that the benefit of agressive and an easy start(early uu, aggricultural, mysticism, agressive = easy start) outweigh a better UU and less benefical trait (such as victoria with expansive and redcoat). It could be said that creative is better than agressive, putting catherine on top, but incans get that early culture benefit anyway because they start with mysticism.

The only other contender IMHO are the malinese... getting not only financial but spirtual... and a sexy UU early in the game. The problem is that you usualy want something to defend with really early, and warriors just dont cut it unless your aggresive. This leaves the malinese the option to get judeism or archery... leaving out aggriculture the entire time. Everything is right for them except the starting techs...

[Prussia]

Originally posted by Nikolai
I did a game as Catherine last week, my first with her. I think I must reevaluate which leader I like most. I totally owned the entire game in a way I've never done before.

I thought it was because she's hot... Oops...
(Remember how fat and ugly she was in Civ 3? )

Anyways, I like Cathy (heh) just because when the time comes for her creative to kick in with wonders like the Sistine Chapel, you already have cossacks, in which case you've pretty much won if you are in the right position.

[Dis]

I'm always in the right position with Catherine.