Best new leader

[Willem]

Originally posted by Generaldoktor
BTW QQ, I also said on the other thread Gandhi had been nerfed. Now that I look at it, Philo civs seem to do well and he still has the good starting techs and the Fast Worker. (But some hate that as a UU.) I guess I'm just hung up on Industrious, (which others also significantly hate.)

I played Gandhi for awhile and he's great for a builder type game. I got Buddhism right off and was able to build my shrine very early thanks to his Philo trait. After that I was expanding steadily while still keeping my research rate at 80-100%, especially after I picked up Judaism and Christrianity and got their shrines up and running too. I was on my way to getting Islam as well. I was way beyond anyone else in tech after awhile. Unfortunately, I was concentrating so much on Wonders and Missionaries, my military ended up being crap, so I gave up that game and started a new, more balanced one.

[Generaldoktor]

Raking in the bucks with Ragnar. Having so much fun playing "Merchant Prince" that I have hardly done anything with the Berserker, but I'm thinking of loading up ships with them, like I did in Civ 3 and using them as "sack and blackmail" Marines. Anybody who fusses with me, gets their cities sacked from the sea, very abruptly, no conquest, no demands, no nothing, just burn, baby Burn! (Actually, rather historically accurate, for the Vikes.)

Thing is, once this gets into the gunpowder era, I perceive this will be much less fun, though I suppose amphibious rifles or true Marines could keep up the same schtick. I guess that's the drawback of an early/mid-game UU.

Ice Age with "high" seas gives a very diverse "island" type map, which is perfect for this sea warfare. Beat Greece and Carthage in naval wars too, the extra movement point from "trading post" and the new trireme sure helps, though the enemy had some of those too. It was funny having Berserker capability and no metals, but I sailed around and found some; even beat everybody to Colossus! I now have iron and copper.

I vote for Ragnar!

[One_more_turn]

At Monarch+ levels, you need big empires to compete against AIs. I've won Space Ship and Cultural games at Emperor levels, but I did it with such a tiny military that a hostile AI could derail my victory run at any time. It was not my idea of fun!

If you want to win the game decisively, building a big empire is the ONLY solution. For that, Organized is the best trait. Financial is ok, but you need to slap cottages everywhere and hamper your growth (fewer pop rushes). At Emperor+ levels, Organized actually saves you more bucks than Financial generates. I usually like to beat up 2 AIs by 0AD; and trust me, you can't afford to hold their cities if you aren't Organized.

[Blake]

I think Hannibal is probably the best, awesome traits, flexible UU, decent UB.

Augustus is worth mentioning, quick and cheap expansion (no need for a culture building), great UU, good UB.

Of the old civs, for Julius I believe imperialistic is better than expansionist, and he was already in the top 2. Imperialistic sure does work, whipping settlers from size 4 cities? oh yeah. With a granary it only takes 30 food to grow those 2 pop points. But of course the main thing is even more dangerous praetorians thanks to GG's.

Many of the Warlord leaders are really nice though and some other old leaders have been improved.

The big loser however is obviously (IMHO) Stalin, good UU (which doesn't benefit from agg) but his traits and UB aren't wonderful. I've never been fond of Ind/Agg, since Agg is for taking wonders.

[DrSpike]

Haven't played em all yet but another preliminary vote for Hannibal.

[Martinus]

A bit off-topic, but I think it's a pity they didn't change Alexander to Philosophical/Charismatic. It would have been a much more interesting combo, imo, as Philosophical/Aggressive does not really provide good synergies, and coupled with phalanx, which is a rather sub-par UU, it makes Greeks a rather unappealing choice.

[Stuie]

Thus far, Augustus seems to best suit my style of play. I walk all over everyone with him, while I have struggled with Hannibal, Ragnar and Brennus.

I forgot Stalin was in the game. He's next.

[MoonWolf]

Alexander was NOT a very Charismatic person... He was not excaclty the nice uncle knocking on your door when passing by...

[Arrian]

Oh, I'd say that Alex was plenty charismatic. He wasn't NICE, but that's not the same thing. One can be quite charismatic w/o being nice.

Blake once again points out something I'd missed: the uberpower of whipping IMP settlers.

-Arrian

[DrSpike]

I am amazed at the amount of people in these leader discussion threads that seem to know ancient leaders personally.

[Willem]

Originally posted by Martinus
A bit off-topic, but I think it's a pity they didn't change Alexander to Philosophical/Charismatic. It would have been a much more interesting combo, imo, as Philosophical/Aggressive does not really provide good synergies, and coupled with phalanx, which is a rather sub-par UU, it makes Greeks a rather unappealing choice.

I was kind of expecting Alexander to become Charismatic in some way, whether with Philo or Aggressive. That would have been in keeping with his historical persona.

[Willem]

Originally posted by MoonWolf
Alexander was NOT a very Charismatic person... He was not excaclty the nice uncle knocking on your door when passing by...

I guess you've been reading different history books than I have. By all accounts I've come across, he was quite charismatic, and able to inspire his troops to do the impossible when needed. As mentioned, being nice has nothing to do with being charismatic.

[Generaldoktor]

Originally posted by Willem


I guess you've been reading different history books than I have. By all accounts I've come across, he was quite charismatic, and able to inspire his troops to do the impossible when needed. As mentioned, being nice has nothing to do with being charismatic.

The Greek mystique that they were "destined" to conquer may have had a lot to do with Alexander's success, plus hatred of the Persians that went back to Thermopolyae. Macedonians themselves were rough, semi-barbarians who profited immensely from Alex's father (Philip's) unification campaign and then more from the collapse of Persia. The phalanx concept and their superior cavalry predate Alexander also.

The Colin Farrell movie depiction has been getting some pretty good reviews for being well-researched. In that, the Greeks are fine when they are winning impossible battles against the hated enemy and looting treasures, but once they get into Central Asia and India, they fight among each other, Alexander does kill a former close compatriot and the troops become mutinous, all before they almost lose everything at the Battle of the Indus. After that battle, "charismatic" Alex is a drunken ranter, seeing enemies everywhere and continually referring to himself as a "god" and planning and assuming more outrageous ritual and material accolades to himself, as one. Then he finally falls ill after a horrendous drunken bout which is also motivated largely by his self-indulgence (and boredom after abandoning his single-minded quest.)

This jives pretty good with what I've read, (the PBS/BBC series "In Search of Alexander," is also pretty good.) The guy is neither a good statesman or truly charismatic. Kudos to Firaxis for seeing that.

[MasterDave]

I like the new and improved Hyuna Capac. He still has combat I Quechas, now has industrious instead of aggressive (a plus for my wonder-whoring ways and love of forges), and still has financial. The terrace is a simply awesome building, and I love starting the game with Mysticism and Agriculture (you can get Animal Husbandry right after Meditation or Poly).

If I have to pick one of the new leaders- I like Korea. Protective is very nice, especially with all the free upgrades to gunpowder units, the Hwacha is a very cool UU. I like the improved University (although it comes in the mid game, so it is not as nice as an early building). He also has financial, and starts with mysticism and mining, meaning you can get bronze working right after meditation or poly.

I have won several multiplayer games already in Warlords as both of these leaders. One of my victims was talking up how awesome the strategies in Civ4 Fanatics were. He finally clammed up after a few burn baby burns from my forces...

[rdm180]

Well, my vote is (currently) the lone vote for Brennus. I have always regarded Spiritual as one of the best traits (and my favorite), and of the new traits, I think Charismatic is the best and most fun to have.

Starting with Mysticism and Hunting is also somewhat unique (Monty is the only other, I believe). My starting scout gets more huts with (presumably) better results. I can go for an early religion and usually get it, thereby giving me access to 2 more happiness per city (after temples are built, at half cost).

With Charismatic, my cities have 1-2 extra happiness at all times, giving me even more freedom to switch civics on a whim (with no anarchy, of course), or whip them an extra time or two. Then, the fun part. My troops seem to get promotions constantly. I'm really impressed with the charismatic trait, and it's very noticeable when I don't have it.

Even though Gallic Warriors are barely an upgrade from normal swordsman, they are still a perfectly viable unit, albeit one without a decisive advantage such as Praetorians have. At least they didn't get "Jaguar'd".