Best new leader

[Arrian]

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.)

1. Alex was not a reasonable man. Charismatic yes, reasonable no. He took his army too far, and then pushed for more. And then there was the march back through the desert, which was bat**** crazy.

2. Alex developed the god complex earlier, back in Egypt (if not before!). He seems to have gotten worse toward the end, though.

3. He did indeed kill a friend in a drunken rage.

All in all, a very flawed fellow. But clearly a great leader of men in battle. That's kinda hard to dispute.

-Arrian

[Ming]

Originally posted by MasterDave
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...

[MoonWolf]

Maybe my translation of charismatic to my native language is not enterilly correct? Anyway, it is characteristics as Generaldoktor describes that I think of as well. I read an article about Alexander in a science magazine that described him in a less heoric way. He is known as "the Great", but he butchered people big time and IIRC, his men where after a while driven by the "kill or be killed" principle. So my understanding of the word "Charismatic", does not apply to Alex eventhough the trait in Civ partly should be valid (-25% XP for promotions)

[Martinus]

Originally posted by MoonWolf
Maybe my translation of charismatic to my native language is not enterilly correct? Anyway, it is characteristics as Generaldoktor describes that I think of as well. I read an article about Alexander in a science magazine that described him in a less heoric way. He is known as "the Great", but he butchered people big time and IIRC, his men where after a while driven by the "kill or be killed" principle. So my understanding of the word "Charismatic", does not apply to Alex eventhough the trait in Civ partly should be valid (-25% XP for promotions)

I think the word has different meaning depending on a context. In a context of a military commander, Charismatic means someone who can rouse soldiers with his speeches and performance on the battlefield, and get them to outdo themselves, basically. I think this fits Alexander the Great perfectly, him being one of the greatest military commanders of all time.

If Napoleon can be Charismatic, so can Alex.

[dregor]

A charismatic leader inspires his people to do great things. It's not about sweeping them off their feet with sweet talking or kissing their proverbial hands. A lot of the leaders represented in cIV are charismatic tbh.

[Generaldoktor]

Alex as charismatic, (several posts.)

I was going to argue this further, even dragging up the definition of "charisma:"

A rare personal quality attributed to leaders who arouse fervent popular devotion and enthusiasm.

There might be times in Alexander the Great's career when he fit this, but the same, as I think someone above just said, can apply to most leaders, who by defniition are all "great" if they made it into Civ. We have to start to think about why Firaxis didn't give Alex the "Charismatic" trait and I think the answers lie in the latter part of his history, plus what I said earlier about other things that could have inspired the Greeks who fought for him.

[MightyTiny]

Originally posted by MoonWolf
Maybe my translation of charismatic to my native language is not enterilly correct? Anyway, it is characteristics as Generaldoktor describes that I think of as well. I read an article about Alexander in a science magazine that described him in a less heoric way. He is known as "the Great", but he butchered people big time and IIRC, his men where after a while driven by the "kill or be killed" principle. So my understanding of the word "Charismatic", does not apply to Alex eventhough the trait in Civ partly should be valid (-25% XP for promotions)

I don't think that "Charismatic" has anything to do with morality or right or wrong - a leader able to inspire his people to do great evil can be called charismatic just as well as a leader who inspires his people to do great good. A Charismatic leader is someone who, when he speaks, people stop to listen - whatever the message. Hitler's a good example of a very charismatic leader, but who would call him anything less than a monster by his actions as a leader?

On the likeable spectrum, Gandhi was also charismatic - he inspired people to be willing to suffer physical abuse without striking back, in passive resistance, in order to shame the English empire into doing the right thing.

I bet many of the leaders in Civ that don't actually have the trait, as historical persons could be said to have been charismatic, but, as people surely understand, perfect realism isn't possible, or even desireable in a game like Civ4.

[MasterDave]

Sorry about dragging us back on-topic, but last night I fought an epic multiplayer game that got to a very advanced state technically (I think it got to 1950 by the time the game ended). I was playing my improved Incas, a very strong player I met earlier in the week was playing Korea (again), two guys were playing England, and there were also humans playing Rome and the Celts. Korea teched extremely well and maintained a tech lead throughout the game. Since I knew the guy we made open borders to enhance our trade income and remained at peace.

I was more of a warmonger with the others, and forced the Celts to capitulate (after the human quit when I attacked his gallic warriors with Grenadiers and cannon ). The English players carved up Rome like a turkey and vassalized the remains. Then I went to war with one of them and the other England joined the war against me. We fought an epic war, where I had a consistent tech lead and slowly drove back the Englands. The guy playing Korea quit the game due to lateness fairly early in this war, and the AI took over. My score was highest, due to my conquests, and large size, but Korea's tech was significantly higher.

This is where the power of Wang Kon really became apparent. Under AI control, Korea continued to tech like a banshee. At around 1940 I had tanks, bombers, plastics (needed it since my only oil was offshore ), most of the wonders and a huge empire. However, the little Koreans had Mech Infantry, Gunships, SAM's, and half of their spaceship built!! An AI on noble should not be able to outtech a huge human empire, but this is exactly what was happening. I am fairly sure that the AI was going to win that game by spacerace before I could get enough land from the englands to get domination (I was at around 45% population and land area when we stopped). I do not think I could have beaten the Koreans militarily, they had huge stacks of Mech Inf and Gunships to kill my tanks.

[Generaldoktor]

Re: MasterDave

Valuable infomation and I don't think we get enough multi-player input, perhaps after a tiff between several of the notable multi-player and several of the notable single player enthusiasts last winter about the comparative merits of MP vs. SP, which I found to be a useless "apples & oranges" argument and very self-destructive to the Civ community. That having died down, thanks for the input.

We thus now know the potential impact of Korea. However, I will point out that in my current SP game, admittedly on Ice Age with "high" seas, (sort of a large-island "archipelago" effect with cold climate,) Korea is a non-performer. Its one great city dominates an island rather pointedly jutting into my empire, which may get it cut off some day by my Berserkers, although I'm having more fun as Ragnar, (surprised? ) building Wonders and racking in silly amounts of gold.

However, I will note, these tiny Koreans have been attacked at various times in the game by groups of from 1-4 AI and appear to have lost none of their empire, while holding this off. Hmmm...

As another observation. I guess since leader personalities are more important to the game than national identity, it's okay to play with two leaders of the same country in the same game, but it seems it would tend to promote confusion. (Do their cities name the same, or in alternate order, for instance?) Anyway, the element of human intuition and ingenuity is the great obvious contribution of multi-player and I'm glad to hear of a game that doesn't involve just early-game "rush" or overt back-stabbing.

BTW, while I agree people frequently get off-topic in these threads, I don't agree the previous sub-discussion about whether Alexander deserves the new trait "charismatic" (and who then should,) was all that OT.

[DrSpike]

Do you have a link to the tiff?

[Generaldoktor]

It shows up various places, but is mostly on Vel's Strategy Thread, Part II in portions dating from the winter, I forget the dates. Do yourself and the world a favor and don't start that up again.

[MasterDave]

Admittedly, the Korean empire I described in my multiplayer game was set up by a very skilled human player. Perhaps with thier cities founded in the right places, their improvements done optimally by a human, and their tech progression run by a skilled player up to a certain point, the Civ AI can really perform quite excellently.

For me, playing the AI on Monarch or Emperor level requires a hugely different approach from playing against other humans (especially when you turn off tech trade, as 95% of multiplayer games do). I am not sure if a "best leader" pick per se would apply to both gaming styles.

[Generaldoktor]

Originally posted by MasterDave
Admittedly, the Korean empire I described in my multiplayer game was set up by a very skilled human player. Perhaps with thier cities founded in the right places, their improvements done optimally by a human, and their tech progression run by a skilled player up to a certain point, the Civ AI can really perform quite excellently.

For me, playing the AI on Monarch or Emperor level requires a hugely different approach from playing against other humans (especially when you turn off tech trade, as 95% of multiplayer games do). I am not sure if a "best leader" pick per se would apply to both gaming styles.

I was thinking certain general proclivities might be derived. You'll notice further up on this thread, some contributors were discussing how the new leaders function as AI's, not even broaching how they function when someone plays them. The combination of personality traits, starting techs and UU/UB can result in a tendency toward shared outcomes.

I could play Montezuma and very well still end up with a game like he plays (the computer plays?) as AI. With my options channeled by the aforementioned characteristics, (traits, UU/UB, starting techs,) I would probably end up playing a warmonger's game, starting early and be at a tech and diplomacy disadvantage all game, not unlike the way he plays as an AI.

It's pretty hard to posit Caesar or Napoleon as a peaceful builder, (though I did play Nappy for awhile at least that way one game, when he was still "Industrious." ) They might do better as warmongers than Monty, but again, the behavior is preset. (Gandhi as warmonger? Possible I suppose, but unlikely.)

So your description of a viable role in a game played by the new Korean, was, to me at least, illuminating.

[rah]

Originally posted by 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).

Agreed. Playing one now and eliminated the romans with the quecha rush, and was still able to build oracle. (monarch) Should be fun for MP games since an early quecha in someones territory can be devestating to their start. (As MD as amply demonstrated.) And they are harder for the animals to eliminate so they can usually search farther.

[Martinus]

Just to close the discussion on Alex - I think making him Phi/Cha instead of Phi/Agg would make him a much more interesting choice to play, since Phi/Agg is such a horrible combo (no synergy there whatsoever), and a Phi/Cha leader could at least benefit from the happiness bonus for GPP synergies. That's all about it.

Speaking of the best leader, I have usually played my vanilla games as a builder and in Warlords I decided to "learn" the warmongering game style, so my opinions may not be very expert, but Hannibal, Ragnar and new Nappy all seem like good choices for a good military strategy. Hannibal and Ragnar are financial, which lets you swim in cash. Hannibal's unit is a bit sub-optimal (since it's a mounted unit, and these are very easy to counter with spears/pikes), and both Hannibal and Ragnar are dependent on coastal cities (which are not good for big army production) to realise their full potential (start with Fishing and have coastal UB), but still they have a capability to be strong.

Napoleon is more of a later era powerhouse, but with his cheap courthouses, extra happiness, more xp and low civic costs he should be able to whip up some powerful armies once he researches Feudalism and Theology.