Really enjoyed these. The main list matches my experience almost perfectly. With AI performance, it's a bit tougher to gauge of course. I think Caesar is atypical of a warmonger - he expands really well, doesn't seem to cripple his economy as much as the others, and as a result techs decently. Often times he either lucks into a lot of land and is a monster, or conquers a nearby AI early on and starts running away. Thanks to the strength of Praets, he also doesn't fall victim to the AI's suicidal nature in pre-construction warfare nearly as often. Honestly, I think he's a big threat whether you spawn next to him or not. The Russian leaders also tend to end up as big threats from what I've experienced/observed. Cathy especially, but Stalin also seems to regularly punch above his weight (decent unit priority and plotting at pleased likely help this).
Russian leaders have very synergic traits. Catherine is the faster land grabber ever, period, with faster settlers which don't need monuments to claim/deny even more land, and the only leader that ALWAYS plots and completely disregards relations. Stalin has garbage Agg, but in combo with his personality and cheap Forges it makes him spam legions of Combat1+ units and actually utilize them.
Interesting video, thanks to your explanations and reasonings. I like these kind of lists. And I appreciated you taking your time to quickly make a How-good-are-they-in-the-hands-of-the-CivIV-AI list at the end. Of course, there are a "million" details that can be argued over. But that would be fruitless and lead nowhere. If everybody made the exact same list, this kind of video would be boring. Good job, and happy 2022!
You never mentioned that charismatic has 25% reduction in promotion costs. Combine that with imperialistic (Cyrus) you’re getting a massively promoted army. Double great generals with imperialism, settle only 2 in a city to get a 3 promotions immediately with barracks and theocracy. Just one or two battles later and you get your 4th promotion. Make sure you build the Great Wall as well for 200% great general emergence and it’s insane. Works amazing with aggressive as well (Boudicca)
@@nikhilbailey7797 I'm doing something similar now! It's so much fun. I've got West Point and Red Cross in my capital (which has good production on its own) with 4 great generals, and I built the Pentagon so I get 21 XP out of the gate. I have my Ironworks city with two great generals so I get 13 there.
My favourite: Gandhi Productivity and no civil unrest when changing social systems (another kind of productively boost). After than it's up to me (and the dice roll of what kind/size of geography you get}.
Thanks for your videos, could i request a strategies video please mate, i think being able to read the situation and form both long and short term strategies is vital.
nice : ) i noted all and gave me some review, for little noobie i am ;) I was very busy coz of work and you uploading actively which is cool, lucky got now 10 days off from work, so will try catch all new and recent films. Lain is back o_O If i compare You and Lain... Lain play very optimal due to Deity difficulty and always looking best ways to win the game, good for ppl who look for best choice on top difficulty. (what sometimes is boring but brings results) I found you play more risky and your games are more aggressive on early and mid game which makes it more entertaining and show the game from different aspects. I like to watch you both as much as time letting me to do it. Thank You for content. Civ 4
Lain is better for sure, I learn a lot from him and try to implement it into my own strategies to make fun interesting games. I play a lot quicker because I get impatient, and I find doing the same strategies like cuirassiers gets a bit boring so mixing in immortal games or engineering attacks should make it more fun.
I really enyojed the video. Even with your comments in minds, I would make some alterations: move Isabella and survaryaman up one tier, sitting Bull and Alex as well. And the drops: mehmed and darius, Justin and rosie-man, perhaps nappy too. But that's like, my opinion, man. Cheers!
once again it's situational and everyone will have their opinions yeah, with better, (or more experiences) those leaders can be worse/better. Sury is strong indeed it's like borderline moving up a tier or not for me but I do think Mehmed is a little better than him, with his uniques, and maybe the starting techs slightly better (or more expensive). Exp +Org is about the same as Exp+Cre. Isabella is someone I love to play, awesome traits and uniques but that starting tech combo really drags her down. Alex can be ok and Phi does make him above average and its a nice combo with Agg so that's a fair arguement. Sitting Bull the unique unit is very nice for barbarian defense puts him on par with pacal or huayna with that part except only playing with 1 trait because protective just sucks. Nappy/Justinian not being that good could be very true. TBH I spent a lot of time on the top and bottom 2 tiers the middle ones are very debatable, you could definitely make some switches. Then again I didn't want to spend 2-3 hours on this tier list and wanted to get through it after explaining why the first few are OP etc. Glad you enjoyed! I will make more of these different types of videos, seems this one was very successful.
@@henrik9658 Thanks for response! Obviously you're right about the different players perspectives and maps being played. I tried to judge them on similar game settings as you did. I guess I really enjoy PHI, so much that even SB seems above average. Additionally, there's one obscure offensive tactic that uses PRO and is suited for SB - xbow rush. Even his crappy UB is useful there. But it's like 1 in 50 games when one could pull it off, on deity at least. When it comes to Mehmed, he really has some nice things going on, and the starting tech are excellent. But I still prefer Surry, in my mind CRE is always better than ORG, and the techs are cheaper, but more versatile. But that is just an argument for moving up Surry. The more I think about it, my Mehmed problem would be solved with one more tier, between top and second. I'd put Elisabeth, Peter, William and Hannibal there and everything would be fine with me :-). Nappy is just the worst of French leader, that's why I seek some diversification there. And Darius - man, I really dislike this dude. First 50 rounds is really hard, perhaps I just happen to lose when I play him :-). With that in mind and trying to be objective, I would move him two tiers down. Once again, that's all subjective and personal. The video indeed was a great idea. Cheers mate!
Have you watched the AI survivor tournaments put on by Sullla? You would find them interesting I think, especially seeing how you ranked the AI leaders.
A fun way to use the leaders with bad starting techs is advanced start. Usually I will cut the suggested # in half. Give yourself the most useful worker tech and make yourself a worker and either a warrior or scout. By the time you have finished improving a tile or two you will have a second worker tech and are about ready to roll. Alternatively you can give yourself meditation and found a religion.
I'm glad you didn't put Mehmed and Sury too low. Especially Mehmed, one of my favourite leaders and one of the leaders i have the most success with. I'm surprised you didn't put that much emphasis on the Creative trait, a very strong trait imo, and you seem to love Expansive a lot. I don't play at your level of difficulty at all so this must be why i never considered Expansive that strong..
Creative is a nice trait but I feel it's very lacking one you reach mid game. It helps you get border pops out quickly and libraries cheap but at a certain point it doesn't really offer much anymore. Cheap colloseum and theatre is pretty meh, organized gives much better building discounts. However I do feel its fun to play and can make a significant difference in the early game. Mehmed and Sury are great leaders
This is a wonderful video, but just echo'ing some points Henrik mentioned, the list of leader ranking is very map dependent. Some leaders are generally better than others (ie FIN is much better than PRO for most human players, but if your in the centre of a Pangea map surrounded by Shaka / Monty / Genghis / Ragnar, I think I might prefer somebody like Sitting bull, than say Willem or Lizzy, who are two of my favourite leaders to play)
I think Wang Kon AI is underrated. If the game lasts till modern age, he is usually the one on top. Him, Huayna Capac and Zara Yaqob. I don't have explanation for that, it is just happening. And he is also most likely to win a space race, that's annoying. Not saying he is great, but definitely not D.
It is interesting to see the tier list by someone who is better at the game than me. I never finished a game at higher than prince difficulty because when I tried monarchy, I saw an enemy archer outside my base before I'd built my first warrior, and I quit because I got mad that the AI was so blatantly cheating. When the AI plays with different rules than me, I feel like I don't know what the rules are and therefore I don't know how to play. I made it more difficult by going to custom game and making all the AIs start on a teams of 2 but I'm by myself (on prince), or all AI are at war against me. I made a mod that flattens the expense of the tech tree. I played on marathon and multiplied all ancient techs by 10, all classical techs by 8, all medieval by 6, etc, so that the difference in cost between ages is much less. It also makes the early game drag on. I liked this because it means that your early techs are hugely important (it might take 300 turns to get your next tech), so the early game is more different between different civs. I always thought it was dumb that I can research my first tech before I build my first worker, because that made it seem like the first tech doesn't matter. I also hate how the game forces you to fly by the early eras, when historically they really took the most time. I also hated how you don't settle the whole map until the medieval era, when historically obviously the whole Earth was settled before anybody could write. I also hated how you can send an army over the ocean to attack, and they become obsolete by the time they get there because you can tech as fast as you can march or sail. Slow techs mean that you fight wars with clubs. You have to turn off inflation to make it work though. Anyway, I found that financial was the only OP trait on this mod, because it makes a bigger difference when tech is so slow. Financial + fishing was particularly OP because it meant that you immediately started with a research boost that nobody could catch up with for a couple hundred turns. Going immediately into sailing also allows you to get some key resources and trade between cities faster. Hunting was also good because the extra chance to get a tech from scouts was super useful when techs are so hard to get. Hunting also leads to archery which is good. Getting the first military tech (axemen, archers, chariots) is OP on this mod because all your neighbors might be hundreds of turns away from being able to counter them if they are researching an economic tech instead. So I found Ragnar to be OP because he can choose between early eco by sailing and early aggression (by either aggressive warriors or early archers). My personal favorite was Elizabeth though, although I realize that the Incas are objectively the best. I remember getting a great merchant from the great lighthouse with this mod and using him to research agriculture, and it actually made sense because he saved me like +200 turns.
My top 3 civ picks are: 1. Inca (of course) 2. Rome ( both are very good on early expanding, a good start is everything) 3. India (best worker, best game).
@@slowpace6641 sounds like never pass a deity game within 200 turns. Workers should never have many wasted turns in a deity game. Run and chop and speed up expanding in the first 100t a lot.
I think he played well in my Genghis game but usually he he crash his economy and falls behind, i.e peter game. The issue with these warmonger characters is they don't tech well, even at peace he only got rifling around 1300ad which really isn't that impressive, he doesn't trade techs unless pleased which can cause him to fall behind easily. These ai exist to ruin your game or another ais game but rarely end up winning themselves.
I do very well with the aggressive leaders but it is probably a flaw in my gameplay. I need to fight earlier and more often than I naturally do. Aggressive pushes me to do that. I love playing Alexander, actually. Wish Greeks had a better UU. Nice on earth 18to go get the horse leaders (Cyrus and Hatsheput)
Great video! Saladin is bottom tier for me. Spiritual and protective is such terrible trait synergy and his starting techs are so bad that often opening warrior is better than worker.
I think Isabella and Willem are both S tier. They both have decent traits and units, but their buildings give the type of advantages that you just dont get anywhere else. Isabella. -> The citadel can unlock the heroic epic without having to go to war, don't underestimate this. The advantage of being able to build fast city raider 3 cannons cannot be understated. Changes everything. Willem -> Getting hammers on river tiles when a city is not actually on the river. Many starting positions are like this. Also, the moai statutes/dike makes a really great super production city, excellent with bureaucracy. the obvious hammer production on water makes games that are otherwise unplayable playable. Just play a game with willem and count the number of additional hammers your civilisation has thanks to the dike. Changes everything. If you can win a game before steam power, then its not really an epic game, the best games are the epic games. Mali, Inca and Maya have decent buildings that make a nice difference, but nothing that is truly game-breaking.
Awful starting techs on isabella pull her down. won't get your fun uniques if you are stuck in a corner with an awful start and those bad techs. Willem is great for long fractal games but in Pangaea or single continent fractal maps he is pretty average as you usually finish the game before steam power is relevant, or only have one or two dudes left to deal with. Pacal / Huayna / Mansa are extremely powerful regardless of the situation and you get use out of their uniques every single game, and their excellent traits.
I rate Montezuma higher. I don't value starting techs as much as you do. I'm currently beating Deity with him. I'm trying to beat deity with leaders from every tier, having started at the top and working my way down. I've gotten good learning from you and Lain. Never done a cuirassier rush (tried to, but cavalry is too nearby when they're available and are a lot less wasteful imo.. cannon rush is even less wasteful). My games take about 30 hours and I still don't outperform you or Lain, except in the domain of handling barbs, which I consistently do with less effort (tech/production) than you guys. Which partly explains why starting techs aren't that crucial to me.
Something that is forgotten about the Romans. The Forum is great. You get +25% great people points. Get the Parthenon and get another +50%. That is nearly Philosophical. That means you can make them 3 trait leaders. That is borderline OP.
I really don't think so, its 150 hammers which means sacrificing 4 population to slavery it or working a mine for 20 turns instead of a specialist which essentially costs more specialist points than what you gain from building it for a long long time. it's not efficient to build markets until late renaissance/industrial era when the happiness becomes super important and its easier to build it. Just play a spiritual civ and switch into Pacifism whenever needed or play philosophical and you are much better. 25% from an expensive building vs having +100% whenever needed is not nearly as strong. Or just build the Parthenon and not bother with an extra small bonus since you already have 150% gpp anyway.
Anyone can get Parthenon. 25% GP growth is useless in most cities, realistically GPs spawn in 1-3 top cities; while 25% bonus is not to be underestimated, it's ultimately nothing game-changing, unlike, say, Ikhanda. And as you might noticed, neither of Roman leaders has Phi, so there is little synergy.
@@TovKafur To be fair, you shouldn't want just any city to get a GP. Many GP strats involve getting a library out early to ensure you get a great scientist. This can be for an academy or to bulb something. As for the synergy, I will say yes and no. No, as you point out, there isn't a direct synergy. Yes, there is an indirect synergy. Would we all like to have a three trait leader. With the Roman leaders, you can just about make that happen. That was my point and it is valid, just as yours it.
@@winoodlesnoodles1984 The problem is that anyone can get Pantheon, and Caesar (arguably stronger leader) doesn't have Ind to guarantee it. 25% GPP boost is really neglible most of time, especially if you run cottage eco.
Great stuff, Henrik!!!! Personally, I would probably skew them more downward. The Chinese leaders are bad. The second row of your good list could be considered average.
I think Chinese leaders are okay, they have 1 decent trait and the best starting techs in the game, which are a huge deal on high levels. I guess the reason I ranked so many leaders so highly is I try to appreciate the benefits of each civ and not focus too much on the negatives. Unless its someone like charle or toku. A lot of leaders have potential to be "good" or "great", and win me games on deity.
@@henrik9658 Lost me at "high levels" lol. I have only beaten Monarch once. I keep getting poor land. I wonder if that is part of the difficulty of if I have just had bad luck.
Protective is the weakest trait, aggressive is 2nd weakest (although significantly better than protective). The techs are ok, so are the uniques. But economic traits instead of protective and aggressive are much more helpful on higher levels, it's better to get to rifling 10 turns earlier with financial or organised or philosophical than get there 10 turns later with slightly better units.
Charlemagne is sort of disappointing for me, cuz i can see the synergy between rathaus and imperialistic traits, so you do a wide wall empire, but horrible techs and protective just don't give you a chance + rathaus is expensive asf. If it'd be less expensive, maybe it would make sense just spamming with them in new cities; wide wall empire makes more sense with Gilgamesh then
if he was organized instead of protective he'd be awesome to play. cheap rathaus and less overall maintenance great synergy for fast expansion with imp.
Yup. Gilgamesh is also so much more convenient and defensive in the early game with that Creative trait, not only do you get to place BETTER cities and dont need a monumet or religion to grow, you also grow instantly with that +2 AND each new cultural level of the city it adds a 20% defensive bonus even without walls.
japan is really undervalued. He is so strong on war through the whole game. Agg axe and protective longbows in the early game; the rifles are the best. Japan can usually finish the deity game within 220 turns.
It's more like noble to immortal is a separate category to deity. The playstyle greatly varies. Immortal you self research almost everything and build up an economy and empire just like noble it's just harder, deity is more about picking certain technologies to beeline and trade to get everything else, via bulbing with great people making philosophical a lot stronger.
@@henrik9658 True, I've tried deity and just get annihilated. I don't even know where to start (turning on tech trading, I guess). The jump from emperor to immortal is not as steep, and seems to follow the same strategies, though you still have to bring a very strong game to immortal.
Yeah deity no tech trade is very hard. But there's many factors to the game. IMO difficulty level only counts for about 50% of what makes it hard- your chosen leader, and the diplo situation take up 25% each. For example, an immortal game with Charlemagne on a terrible map with strong ai is harder than a deity Pangaea with pacal. (I know from experience!!). If you want to beat deity a first time play pacal or Suleiman or mehmed, and roll for double food flood plains / gems gold start
Interesting video, and I appreciate much of your thinking. However, I believe you overrate the EXPANSIVE trait. The 25% production bonus on Workers is worth very little due to the way the game calculates it. The 25% only applies to the base production, not to the food redirected into the Worker build. To get even a single hammer of benefit, the city must have 4 hammers in base production, and many new cities DO NOT. The Settler bonus on IMPERIALISTIC suffers from a similar problem. Often, the majority of the build is redirected food which gets no bonus.
Yes I know how expansive works, but it's still extremely strong. More often than not you can swap your tiles around to work hammers and leverage it and getting your first worker out 2-3 turns earlier speeds everything else up. Furthermore the cheaper granaries are a huge deal you can build them in 1 chop or 1 pop whip instead of growing to size 4 and whipping. You can use overflow into workers or granaries which gets the benefit. You can also whip workers at size 4 for much more overflow than usual.
@@henrik9658 When planning, I mentally translate the 25% EXP and 50% IMP bonuses to 15% and 30%, which I've found more accurately reflects the actual turns saved. But the cheap Granary is a big win. EXP is a good trait, just not top tier IMO.
@@henrik9658 ahh i see makes sence i guess to each there own, personally really like to spam settlers so imperialistic is something i dont mind at all but i know other traits can totally outshine its limited usefulness
The settler spam is good it's just hard to afford it on high difficulties especially with the crappy starting techs, you are a long way from pottery and writing
@@henrik9658 Very true at the same time i try and rush religion pretty early, either the one of the first two ages depending on other priorities but i dont usally play on higher difficulties I'm way more of a casual player just having fun but I see how competitively you would probably want something else😂
@@henrik9658 lol... is it loud sometimes... but don;t worry... I'm not trying to be a jerk or anything. it;s just that i was really interested in this one. and i wanted to hear what had to say about this
@@henrik9658 hello, thx for the work just found this game, played my first 3 civ games and beat warlord big noob here, music is epic and the baba yetu yetu uliye hit different
So many years this game has been out and I'm still addicted to it. Hard to play as well which is good.
@@chuckwhite3033 same , way better than civ 5
Really enjoyed these. The main list matches my experience almost perfectly.
With AI performance, it's a bit tougher to gauge of course. I think Caesar is atypical of a warmonger - he expands really well, doesn't seem to cripple his economy as much as the others, and as a result techs decently. Often times he either lucks into a lot of land and is a monster, or conquers a nearby AI early on and starts running away. Thanks to the strength of Praets, he also doesn't fall victim to the AI's suicidal nature in pre-construction warfare nearly as often. Honestly, I think he's a big threat whether you spawn next to him or not.
The Russian leaders also tend to end up as big threats from what I've experienced/observed. Cathy especially, but Stalin also seems to regularly punch above his weight (decent unit priority and plotting at pleased likely help this).
Russian leaders have very synergic traits. Catherine is the faster land grabber ever, period, with faster settlers which don't need monuments to claim/deny even more land, and the only leader that ALWAYS plots and completely disregards relations. Stalin has garbage Agg, but in combo with his personality and cheap Forges it makes him spam legions of Combat1+ units and actually utilize them.
For those interested my personal favourite leaders for the sake of enjoyment are:
Pacal
Hatshepsut
Sury
Suleiman
Isabella
Interesting video, thanks to your explanations and reasonings. I like these kind of lists. And I appreciated you taking your time to quickly make a How-good-are-they-in-the-hands-of-the-CivIV-AI list at the end. Of course, there are a "million" details that can be argued over. But that would be fruitless and lead nowhere. If everybody made the exact same list, this kind of video would be boring. Good job, and happy 2022!
Dude you are the man was looking forward to this, merry Christmas
You too! Merry Christmas
You never mentioned that charismatic has 25% reduction in promotion costs. Combine that with imperialistic (Cyrus) you’re getting a massively promoted army. Double great generals with imperialism, settle only 2 in a city to get a 3 promotions immediately with barracks and theocracy. Just one or two battles later and you get your 4th promotion. Make sure you build the Great Wall as well for 200% great general emergence and it’s insane. Works amazing with aggressive as well (Boudicca)
yep i love charismatic in certain situations, it was awesome in my most recent always war game and on the hannibal live stream.
@@nikhilbailey7797 I'm doing something similar now! It's so much fun. I've got West Point and Red Cross in my capital (which has good production on its own) with 4 great generals, and I built the Pentagon so I get 21 XP out of the gate. I have my Ironworks city with two great generals so I get 13 there.
I am playing Polish Empire mod and my leader Sobieski is Charismatic and Imperialistic. I like this combination, much stronger than Kazimierz Wielki
My favourite: Gandhi Productivity and no civil unrest when changing social systems (another kind of productively boost). After than it's up to me (and the dice roll of what kind/size of geography you get}.
Thanks for your videos, could i request a strategies video please mate, i think being able to read the situation and form both long and short term strategies is vital.
nice : ) i noted all and gave me some review, for little noobie i am ;)
I was very busy coz of work and you uploading actively which is cool, lucky got now 10 days off from work, so will try catch all new and recent films. Lain is back o_O
If i compare You and Lain...
Lain play very optimal due to Deity difficulty and always looking best ways to win the game, good for ppl who look for best choice on top difficulty. (what sometimes is boring but brings results)
I found you play more risky and your games are more aggressive on early and mid game which makes it more entertaining and show the game from different aspects.
I like to watch you both as much as time letting me to do it. Thank You for content. Civ 4
Lain is better for sure, I learn a lot from him and try to implement it into my own strategies to make fun interesting games. I play a lot quicker because I get impatient, and I find doing the same strategies like cuirassiers gets a bit boring so mixing in immortal games or engineering attacks should make it more fun.
I really enyojed the video. Even with your comments in minds, I would make some alterations: move Isabella and survaryaman up one tier, sitting Bull and Alex as well. And the drops: mehmed and darius, Justin and rosie-man, perhaps nappy too.
But that's like, my opinion, man.
Cheers!
once again it's situational and everyone will have their opinions yeah, with better, (or more experiences) those leaders can be worse/better. Sury is strong indeed it's like borderline moving up a tier or not for me but I do think Mehmed is a little better than him, with his uniques, and maybe the starting techs slightly better (or more expensive). Exp +Org is about the same as Exp+Cre. Isabella is someone I love to play, awesome traits and uniques but that starting tech combo really drags her down. Alex can be ok and Phi does make him above average and its a nice combo with Agg so that's a fair arguement. Sitting Bull the unique unit is very nice for barbarian defense puts him on par with pacal or huayna with that part except only playing with 1 trait because protective just sucks. Nappy/Justinian not being that good could be very true. TBH I spent a lot of time on the top and bottom 2 tiers the middle ones are very debatable, you could definitely make some switches. Then again I didn't want to spend 2-3 hours on this tier list and wanted to get through it after explaining why the first few are OP etc. Glad you enjoyed! I will make more of these different types of videos, seems this one was very successful.
@@henrik9658 Thanks for response! Obviously you're right about the different players perspectives and maps being played. I tried to judge them on similar game settings as you did.
I guess I really enjoy PHI, so much that even SB seems above average. Additionally, there's one obscure offensive tactic that uses PRO and is suited for SB - xbow rush. Even his crappy UB is useful there. But it's like 1 in 50 games when one could pull it off, on deity at least.
When it comes to Mehmed, he really has some nice things going on, and the starting tech are excellent. But I still prefer Surry, in my mind CRE is always better than ORG, and the techs are cheaper, but more versatile. But that is just an argument for moving up Surry. The more I think about it, my Mehmed problem would be solved with one more tier, between top and second. I'd put Elisabeth, Peter, William and Hannibal there and everything would be fine with me :-).
Nappy is just the worst of French leader, that's why I seek some diversification there. And Darius - man, I really dislike this dude. First 50 rounds is really hard, perhaps I just happen to lose when I play him :-). With that in mind and trying to be objective, I would move him two tiers down.
Once again, that's all subjective and personal. The video indeed was a great idea. Cheers mate!
Have you watched the AI survivor tournaments put on by Sullla? You would find them interesting I think, especially seeing how you ranked the AI leaders.
yup i watched all, good content indeed.
A fun way to use the leaders with bad starting techs is advanced start. Usually I will cut the suggested # in half. Give yourself the most useful worker tech and make yourself a worker and either a warrior or scout. By the time you have finished improving a tile or two you will have a second worker tech and are about ready to roll. Alternatively you can give yourself meditation and found a religion.
Nice video! What's happened to Hannibal's picture though?
Don't know I didn't make this thing
I'm glad you didn't put Mehmed and Sury too low. Especially Mehmed, one of my favourite leaders and one of the leaders i have the most success with.
I'm surprised you didn't put that much emphasis on the Creative trait, a very strong trait imo, and you seem to love Expansive a lot. I don't play at your level of difficulty at all so this must be why i never considered Expansive that strong..
Creative is a nice trait but I feel it's very lacking one you reach mid game. It helps you get border pops out quickly and libraries cheap but at a certain point it doesn't really offer much anymore. Cheap colloseum and theatre is pretty meh, organized gives much better building discounts. However I do feel its fun to play and can make a significant difference in the early game.
Mehmed and Sury are great leaders
Ok nvm Sury is awesome just beat the latest noble's club by 1330AD with him on deity.
But do you really want to play as him when the real life version was such a repulsive disgusting pile of trash?
Plenty of leaders are, particularly Mao and Stalin and GK to some extent. It's irrelevant to bring real life into this game.
@@henrik9658 You're right of course. If we're going by that it would rule out a lot of the other leaders.
I just personally despise Mehmed II.
This is a wonderful video, but just echo'ing some points Henrik mentioned, the list of leader ranking is very map dependent. Some leaders are generally better than others (ie FIN is much better than PRO for most human players, but if your in the centre of a Pangea map surrounded by Shaka / Monty / Genghis / Ragnar, I think I might prefer somebody like Sitting bull, than say Willem or Lizzy, who are two of my favourite leaders to play)
Commenting to help if it still gets more algorithm hits. Just came from the new tier list video.
Great content. keep it up! When is your live stream or next mp game? I’m also Aussie so looking forward to it.
I am getting a proper streamer microphone set up this week so it should be soon!
I think Wang Kon AI is underrated. If the game lasts till modern age, he is usually the one on top. Him, Huayna Capac and Zara Yaqob. I don't have explanation for that, it is just happening.
And he is also most likely to win a space race, that's annoying.
Not saying he is great, but definitely not D.
I can't get the relation between having tech treading on and the Philosophical trait...
Because you can bulb techs with great people and trade them for other techs or money, that way you can stay ahead in tech.
It is interesting to see the tier list by someone who is better at the game than me. I never finished a game at higher than prince difficulty because when I tried monarchy, I saw an enemy archer outside my base before I'd built my first warrior, and I quit because I got mad that the AI was so blatantly cheating. When the AI plays with different rules than me, I feel like I don't know what the rules are and therefore I don't know how to play.
I made it more difficult by going to custom game and making all the AIs start on a teams of 2 but I'm by myself (on prince), or all AI are at war against me.
I made a mod that flattens the expense of the tech tree. I played on marathon and multiplied all ancient techs by 10, all classical techs by 8, all medieval by 6, etc, so that the difference in cost between ages is much less. It also makes the early game drag on. I liked this because it means that your early techs are hugely important (it might take 300 turns to get your next tech), so the early game is more different between different civs. I always thought it was dumb that I can research my first tech before I build my first worker, because that made it seem like the first tech doesn't matter. I also hate how the game forces you to fly by the early eras, when historically they really took the most time. I also hated how you don't settle the whole map until the medieval era, when historically obviously the whole Earth was settled before anybody could write. I also hated how you can send an army over the ocean to attack, and they become obsolete by the time they get there because you can tech as fast as you can march or sail. Slow techs mean that you fight wars with clubs. You have to turn off inflation to make it work though. Anyway, I found that financial was the only OP trait on this mod, because it makes a bigger difference when tech is so slow. Financial + fishing was particularly OP because it meant that you immediately started with a research boost that nobody could catch up with for a couple hundred turns. Going immediately into sailing also allows you to get some key resources and trade between cities faster. Hunting was also good because the extra chance to get a tech from scouts was super useful when techs are so hard to get. Hunting also leads to archery which is good. Getting the first military tech (axemen, archers, chariots) is OP on this mod because all your neighbors might be hundreds of turns away from being able to counter them if they are researching an economic tech instead. So I found Ragnar to be OP because he can choose between early eco by sailing and early aggression (by either aggressive warriors or early archers). My personal favorite was Elizabeth though, although I realize that the Incas are objectively the best. I remember getting a great merchant from the great lighthouse with this mod and using him to research agriculture, and it actually made sense because he saved me like +200 turns.
My top 3 civ picks are: 1. Inca (of course) 2. Rome ( both are very good on early expanding, a good start is everything) 3. India (best worker, best game).
India is pretty cool, spiritual leaders and fast workers grants a lot of extra turns, productive turns...it´s a blast
@@slowpace6641 sounds like never pass a deity game within 200 turns. Workers should never have many wasted turns in a deity game. Run and chop and speed up expanding in the first 100t a lot.
Would only say that Shaka as an AI is not that terrible. He usually expands quite well and then goes on to conquer someone. Usually a bit scary.
I think he played well in my Genghis game but usually he he crash his economy and falls behind, i.e peter game.
The issue with these warmonger characters is they don't tech well, even at peace he only got rifling around 1300ad which really isn't that impressive, he doesn't trade techs unless pleased which can cause him to fall behind easily. These ai exist to ruin your game or another ais game but rarely end up winning themselves.
Ironically I just lost to a cuirassier rush in my game earlier
I do very well with the aggressive leaders but it is probably a flaw in my gameplay. I need to fight earlier and more often than I naturally do. Aggressive pushes me to do that. I love playing Alexander, actually. Wish Greeks had a better UU. Nice on earth 18to go get the horse leaders (Cyrus and Hatsheput)
Amazing video! Thanks a lot!
Very nice video. I totally forgot that they nerfed Saladin from Philosophical to Protective.
I still play this one from time to time. Each time I play a different leader
Great video! Saladin is bottom tier for me. Spiritual and protective is such terrible trait synergy and his starting techs are so bad that often opening warrior is better than worker.
I think Isabella and Willem are both S tier. They both have decent traits and units, but their buildings give the type of advantages that you just dont get anywhere else.
Isabella. -> The citadel can unlock the heroic epic without having to go to war, don't underestimate this. The advantage of being able to build fast city raider 3 cannons cannot be understated. Changes everything.
Willem -> Getting hammers on river tiles when a city is not actually on the river. Many starting positions are like this. Also, the moai statutes/dike makes a really great super production city, excellent with bureaucracy. the obvious hammer production on water makes games that are otherwise unplayable playable. Just play a game with willem and count the number of additional hammers your civilisation has thanks to the dike. Changes everything. If you can win a game before steam power, then its not really an epic game, the best games are the epic games.
Mali, Inca and Maya have decent buildings that make a nice difference, but nothing that is truly game-breaking.
Awful starting techs on isabella pull her down. won't get your fun uniques if you are stuck in a corner with an awful start and those bad techs.
Willem is great for long fractal games but in Pangaea or single continent fractal maps he is pretty average as you usually finish the game before steam power is relevant, or only have one or two dudes left to deal with.
Pacal / Huayna / Mansa are extremely powerful regardless of the situation and you get use out of their uniques every single game, and their excellent traits.
is it beyond the sword or vanilla?😅
My top leaders/civs:
Hannibal
William
Cyrus
Isabella
Justinian
while not the strongest they are definitely some of the most enjoyable! no arguements there
thank you for making this video at 2 am
Where would you rank Hannibal? I think he's missing from the video
A tier for human and AI
You are like suedeciv, you are the wisest in this game
I rate Montezuma higher. I don't value starting techs as much as you do. I'm currently beating Deity with him. I'm trying to beat deity with leaders from every tier, having started at the top and working my way down. I've gotten good learning from you and Lain. Never done a cuirassier rush (tried to, but cavalry is too nearby when they're available and are a lot less wasteful imo.. cannon rush is even less wasteful). My games take about 30 hours and I still don't outperform you or Lain, except in the domain of handling barbs, which I consistently do with less effort (tech/production) than you guys. Which partly explains why starting techs aren't that crucial to me.
Something that is forgotten about the Romans. The Forum is great. You get +25% great people points. Get the Parthenon and get another +50%. That is nearly Philosophical. That means you can make them 3 trait leaders. That is borderline OP.
I really don't think so, its 150 hammers which means sacrificing 4 population to slavery it or working a mine for 20 turns instead of a specialist which essentially costs more specialist points than what you gain from building it for a long long time. it's not efficient to build markets until late renaissance/industrial era when the happiness becomes super important and its easier to build it. Just play a spiritual civ and switch into Pacifism whenever needed or play philosophical and you are much better. 25% from an expensive building vs having +100% whenever needed is not nearly as strong. Or just build the Parthenon and not bother with an extra small bonus since you already have 150% gpp anyway.
Anyone can get Parthenon. 25% GP growth is useless in most cities, realistically GPs spawn in 1-3 top cities; while 25% bonus is not to be underestimated, it's ultimately nothing game-changing, unlike, say, Ikhanda. And as you might noticed, neither of Roman leaders has Phi, so there is little synergy.
@@TovKafur To be fair, you shouldn't want just any city to get a GP. Many GP strats involve getting a library out early to ensure you get a great scientist. This can be for an academy or to bulb something.
As for the synergy, I will say yes and no. No, as you point out, there isn't a direct synergy. Yes, there is an indirect synergy. Would we all like to have a three trait leader. With the Roman leaders, you can just about make that happen. That was my point and it is valid, just as yours it.
@@winoodlesnoodles1984 The problem is that anyone can get Pantheon, and Caesar (arguably stronger leader) doesn't have Ind to guarantee it. 25% GPP boost is really neglible most of time, especially if you run cottage eco.
Best leaders tier list on YT
Great stuff, Henrik!!!!
Personally, I would probably skew them more downward. The Chinese leaders are bad. The second row of your good list could be considered average.
I think Chinese leaders are okay, they have 1 decent trait and the best starting techs in the game, which are a huge deal on high levels. I guess the reason I ranked so many leaders so highly is I try to appreciate the benefits of each civ and not focus too much on the negatives. Unless its someone like charle or toku. A lot of leaders have potential to be "good" or "great", and win me games on deity.
@@henrik9658 Lost me at "high levels" lol. I have only beaten Monarch once. I keep getting poor land. I wonder if that is part of the difficulty of if I have just had bad luck.
I think i missed the explanation about why tokugawa is so bad to play with. I guess starting techs (?), could you add anything to that?
Protective is the weakest trait, aggressive is 2nd weakest (although significantly better than protective). The techs are ok, so are the uniques. But economic traits instead of protective and aggressive are much more helpful on higher levels, it's better to get to rifling 10 turns earlier with financial or organised or philosophical than get there 10 turns later with slightly better units.
you should do an AI leader tier list :)
@@biborkiraly394 he did. At the end of the video
he did. at the end of the video.
Charlemagne is sort of disappointing for me, cuz i can see the synergy between rathaus and imperialistic traits, so you do a wide wall empire, but horrible techs and protective just don't give you a chance + rathaus is expensive asf. If it'd be less expensive, maybe it would make sense just spamming with them in new cities; wide wall empire makes more sense with Gilgamesh then
if he was organized instead of protective he'd be awesome to play. cheap rathaus and less overall maintenance great synergy for fast expansion with imp.
Yup. Gilgamesh is also so much more convenient and defensive in the early game with that Creative trait, not only do you get to place BETTER cities and dont need a monumet or religion to grow, you also grow instantly with that +2 AND each new cultural level of the city it adds a 20% defensive bonus even without walls.
my civ 4 is so radically modded, but i would put charlamage #1, or maybe cyrus
japan is really undervalued. He is so strong on war through the whole game. Agg axe and protective longbows in the early game; the rifles are the best. Japan can usually finish the deity game within 220 turns.
Immortal is "lower difficulty"?
It's more like noble to immortal is a separate category to deity. The playstyle greatly varies. Immortal you self research almost everything and build up an economy and empire just like noble it's just harder, deity is more about picking certain technologies to beeline and trade to get everything else, via bulbing with great people making philosophical a lot stronger.
@@henrik9658 True, I've tried deity and just get annihilated. I don't even know where to start (turning on tech trading, I guess). The jump from emperor to immortal is not as steep, and seems to follow the same strategies, though you still have to bring a very strong game to immortal.
Yeah deity no tech trade is very hard. But there's many factors to the game. IMO difficulty level only counts for about 50% of what makes it hard- your chosen leader, and the diplo situation take up 25% each. For example, an immortal game with Charlemagne on a terrible map with strong ai is harder than a deity Pangaea with pacal. (I know from experience!!). If you want to beat deity a first time play pacal or Suleiman or mehmed, and roll for double food flood plains / gems gold start
Great video
Interesting video, and I appreciate much of your thinking. However, I believe you overrate the EXPANSIVE trait. The 25% production bonus on Workers is worth very little due to the way the game calculates it. The 25% only applies to the base production, not to the food redirected into the Worker build. To get even a single hammer of benefit, the city must have 4 hammers in base production, and many new cities DO NOT. The Settler bonus on IMPERIALISTIC suffers from a similar problem. Often, the majority of the build is redirected food which gets no bonus.
Yes I know how expansive works, but it's still extremely strong. More often than not you can swap your tiles around to work hammers and leverage it and getting your first worker out 2-3 turns earlier speeds everything else up. Furthermore the cheaper granaries are a huge deal you can build them in 1 chop or 1 pop whip instead of growing to size 4 and whipping.
You can use overflow into workers or granaries which gets the benefit. You can also whip workers at size 4 for much more overflow than usual.
@@henrik9658 When planning, I mentally translate the 25% EXP and 50% IMP bonuses to 15% and 30%, which I've found more accurately reflects the actual turns saved. But the cheap Granary is a big win. EXP is a good trait, just not top tier IMO.
I'd rank it 4th slightly below spiritual which is slightly under philosophical and financially
Augustus is best leader.
Great resource!
Awww, I like me some Toku.
he is definitely one of my fav to play
Alguien que hable español que juegue?
I main Charlemagne why is he bad? especially when this video says "explanation"💀
worst possible starting tech combo and protective&imperialistic are sucky traits. especially protective.
@@henrik9658 ahh i see makes sence i guess to each there own, personally really like to spam settlers so imperialistic is something i dont mind at all but i know other traits can totally outshine its limited usefulness
The settler spam is good it's just hard to afford it on high difficulties especially with the crappy starting techs, you are a long way from pottery and writing
@@henrik9658 Very true at the same time i try and rush religion pretty early, either the one of the first two ages depending on other priorities but i dont usally play on higher difficulties I'm way more of a casual player just having fun but I see how competitively you would probably want something else😂
Team Charlemagne where you @???
How much time would you say it would take to be able to play on the Prince difficulty?
good videos and i've subscribed. advice though? drop the music. it's an annoying distraction. takes way from the enjoyment of the videos.
The music is the best part about the game
@@henrik9658 LOL... ok... but i guess i was more interested in what you have to say...
I can turn it down if it's too loud but playing with it muted is very boring
@@henrik9658 lol... is it loud sometimes... but don;t worry... I'm not trying to be a jerk or anything. it;s just that i was really interested in this one. and i wanted to hear what had to say about this
@@henrik9658 hello, thx for the work just found this game, played my first 3 civ games and beat warlord big noob here, music is epic and the baba yetu yetu uliye hit different