Who's the Best New Leader in BTS?

[kittenOFchaos]

For ancient start multiplayer with a 120 odd turn limit I think the Native Americans are lethal.

The dog warrior eats melee units alive and doesn't require metal, if escorted with a spear it can be a choke next to impossible to remove without a high cost. The totem pole means that with protective their archers and longbows are just plain nasty to remove.

As organised they can over-expand more cheaply and so maintain a decent rate of tech whilst outproducing and by being philo it ain't hard for them to pop out an artist to culture bomb a city to setup a kill.

Just a great civ.

I won the first multiplayer ladder tourney with them as well...

[korn469]

I love Boudica's trait combination. I built two cities and went on to conquer the world (well win a domination victory at least).

Check out the standard bearer of my army.

[Alexander I]

You know, I'm not the biggest fan of Charlemagne's trait combo, but he's a really good in-game leader. He's a trustworthy ally, a great expansionist and fighter, and a good builder. Big Chuck is what makes the HRE civ worth keeping.

[Nugog]

Originally posted by Blake
Boudica (Aggressive/Charismatic) - Celtic Leader (Gaulic Warrior, Dunn, Mysticism/Hunting)

Boudy can be described as Tokugawa on crack (with boobs). Not only does she have dual military traits, one of the traits also doubles as a half-economic trait (especially since she starts with mysticism).

I would describe her as a one trick pony, but it's a bloody fine trick. If any leader is going to knock someone out of the game, regardless of their wishes, it's Boudy. Early melee UU benefiting from both traits says it all.

[Kekkonen]

For all the love the Celts get, am I alone in thinking that their unique building sucks? You get a situation-specific bonus for the units that are eligible, and even that expires once you get your hands on a rifle.

[korn469]

Kekkonen

I agree completely. I actually think that both the celt UB and UU are fairly weak. Could you imagine Boudica leading a civ with the zulu UB and the praetorians? Oh hells yeah!

[dregor]

I haven't experienced all the new leaders yet, but I love Pacal II and his Mayans. I absolutely dominated a game culturally the other day, while still maintaining a decent sized army and a tech lead. Was on Prince tho, so shrug.

[Solver]

I would still take Suryavarman over Pacal, however. Ballista Elephants are wonderful if you can build them - you don't have to worry about any mounted units until Cuirassiers and, of course, they have a great offensive capacity. The Baray is highly effective while those cities are still small.

[Shrapnel12]

What? No bannana option?

[Jvstin]

Originally posted by Blake


The two sea-centric leaders are very nice, and on very watery maps they would be strong leaders. But for general use, the lack of an early UU and early UB means they don't get a top 3 spot. Suryavarman II has strong traits, but let down by a not so strong UB and a UU which may not come into play.

Granted that in all situations, the Dutch are not universally strong. Still, on Archipelago maps, the Dutch are just killer with the East Indiaman and the Dike. The Dutch should always build on a coast or a river unless they have really good reason to do otherwise. And with Creative, they can park a city near a river even if its a square extra away from that resource you want, because you'll get the fat cross soon no matter what.

If they pick their most waterborne city to build the Moai Statues, the hammers and gold they get on those squares are Niice.

[Jvstin]

Originally posted by korn469
Kekkonen

I agree completely. I actually think that both the celt UB and UU are fairly weak. Could you imagine Boudica leading a civ with the zulu UB and the praetorians? Oh hells yeah!

I never liked the Celts UB and UU, and for that reason I don't play them that often.

However, Boudica seems ready made for an overcrowded Highlands map where whacking neighbors early and often is the name of the game.

[Will9]

I really like Justinian. Spiritial is always nice. Imperialistic combined with Cataphracts is a very good combo. FEAR MY COMBAT 6 CATAPHRACT (21 ) !!!! THE 3 HORSEMEN OF THE IZZY'S APOPCALYPSE!!!!

[Alexander I]

Originally posted by Will9
I really like Justinian. Spiritial is always nice. Imperialistic combined with Cataphracts is a very good combo. FEAR MY COMBAT 6 CATAPHRACT (21 ) !!!! THE 3 HORSEMEN OF THE IZZY'S APOPCALYPSE!!!!

Heh, It's fun to build a bunch of them and run over your unsuspecting enemy. He think's he's safe but doesn't realize that Cataphracts are more powerful than the average unit...

[Blake]

Originally posted by Kekkonen
For all the love the Celts get, am I alone in thinking that their unique building sucks? You get a situation-specific bonus for the units that are eligible, and even that expires once you get your hands on a rifle.

The Celts are strong due to traits.

Charismatic is a strong trait, especially combined with other experience boosting factors.

Like SPIRITUAL! Being spiritual lets you switch to Vassalage+Theocracy any time you please, allowing you to train lvl4 mounted units, which is very nice. Add a settled GG to a city and it can pop out any unit type at lvl4.
This is basically "Half Aggressive" (higher level promotions) - it's like being half aggressive on top of the usual benefits of charismatic and spiritual. But you aren't stuck with being a super-warmonger, being spiritual lets you switch right into Bureaucracy+Pacifism on a whim.
(as a note Charismatic gives more bang for buck than imperialistic in terms of great generals - a Cha leader can do with 1 GG what another leader needs 2 for, it takes more than twice as many GG points to generate 2 GG's than 1. In other words, Cha > Imp for GG's)

Then looking at the economic aspects. Charismatic gives boosted monuments, mysticism lets you build monuments right away and also shoot for an early religion, an early religion does wonderful things in combination with Spiritual making available cheap happiness (temples) and religious civics.

Furthermore between the no-brainer monument build (cheapest happiness building in the game), and the early religion, culture is easy to come by, making the combination of Charismatic+Spiritual like half-creative.

Brennus is basically Charismatic + Spiritual + Half Aggressive + Half Creative, he's a tri-trait leader who expands strongly, builds strongly and wages war strongly.

Boudy doesn't have spiritual so isn't as good, but having units start with 2 free promotions, AND being charismatic - that's wrong too.

[Will9]

a Cha leader can do with 1 GG what another leader needs 2 for

Since CHA is only -25% for promotions wouldn't it be a CHA can do with 1 GG what a another leader needs 4 for. Also, CHA doesn't affect millitary acadimies.