Age II Leaders and Wonders Tier List - Through The Ages - Basic Strategies
Вставка
- Опубліковано 12 вер 2024
- Make your own Tier List here: tiermaker.com/...
My Card Reviews are some of my most watched Videos and a lot of people still show great interest in those. So I want to go back and adjust some of my ratings since I have played a lot more with the Expansion since the last Video. But this time I am gonna commit on ranking the leaders and wonders on a Tier List.
Check out my Twitch livestreams on / djparson
Also check out these other TTA channels:
PlayTTA: / @playtta
El-ad David Amir: / dtelad11
Japhet Stevens: / jaafit
I think Nobel is super op but the game cards row mechanic makes a good deal in allowing the players themselves to balance it by picking him for 2 or 3 ca each game
Spot on! I think that is a big reason why this game feels so balanced overall. The strongest cards just cost more to pick, so it balances itself out.
Insightful video, as always. I know you discussed the techs briefly in the beginning, but I think a tier list of the techs would enrich this discussion even further. I think Journalism + Architecture is one of the most powerful combos, especially early in Age II. It provides a relatively early culture boost in addition to an abundance of science that can allow you to avoid (higher level) labs altogether, all at the cost of an Alchemy (without Architecture). I think libraries can often be overlooked. Like you, I rarely go for Printing Press. But I recently realized that Printing Press has the same cost as Philosophy, and it’s even cheaper than Philosophy with Masonry or Architecture, which is really interesting. Anyways, excellent video!
Thanks! I definitly want to do more strategy / beginner videos in the future, so this is great feedback. I am not sure if a tier list will work that well for the technologies. They might be even more depending on the situation and what you already have than the leaders and wonders. But I will think about it.
I think that both Watt and Robespierre are there for emergencies, if you pick either then you're shoring up for multiple Age I deficiencies (usually science and ... something else). On the other hand, Nobel single-handedly justifies your approach of avoiding Alchemy, the flat two science is quite a boost.
Would you pick Newton if you don't have Scientific Method yet? (Still on Philosophy?)
For 3/4 players, I think Shakespeare can go up to C, since they could be less aggressive. Darwin can go down to C, denying technologies is less of an issue and the points bonus is not enough.
👋I recognize that name, we played Netrunner minnesota. Glad to see your enjoying another great game.
@@lauriepoulter7925 Same to you :)
Almost all Age-II leaders are situational. A few are generally good for everyone or do not require specific conditions to work (Nobel, Napoleon, Catherine). Bach needs some requirements, but it is the easiest ones to meet, and the return is tremendous. Even if you don't have extra yellow token to spare, using him to upgrade (free) temple to theater is already great and cost-effective way to start producing culture. Elect him, develop Opera, upgrade a temple, and you suddenly boost your culture production by 5, spending 5 rocks and 5 sci. I really him. Unlike Shakespeare, he put very least burden on your civilization in order to produce culture. Bach needs fewer actions, rocks, science, and population to accomplish, making it easier to defend your culture lead. I've been in a game where Bach has a huge culture lead that even one big war can't swing the game.
It is easier to get 3 free rocks from Maria in 3p, but she needs good agriculture technology or Ocean Liner Service to get population out every turn. She is also amazing for colonization if you already has Cartography or Navigation: free sci from increasing population and free rocks to rebuild units. Catherine is great even if you can't get that yellow (I consider it as a bonus, not something I must get from her). 1 MA makes Republic more viable and 2 culture is always nice. You can use her to push pressure on your opponents by threatening to steal yellow token, forcing them to respond in military instead of letting them build another theater.
Newton is super great when Space Flight is in the game. He works with Computers and Multimedia which is nice while you are waiting for Age-III leaders. If I already have wonders that give culture (Eiffel, Louvre, Taj Mahal) I'd rather take Newton instead of Darwin. Newton helps you clear out technology cards from your hand (by giving extra science and free action), while Darwin doesn't. Clearing hand means more room for yellow cards. He is fantastic when using it this way.
James Cook is not something to plan for. Usually he is picked by those who already has colonized 1-2 territories, and those who don't have any colony won't pick him, so he is not a contested leader. His 2 extra boats basically turns Cartography into Satellite. One problem with Cook is a player who takes him may over colonize just to gain 1 extra culture. Population is sacrificed for colonization, and recruit back to the military units, so on and so on. Because of this, he tends to score low on several impacts, especially the impact of population.
Great additional analysis, thanks!
On wonders, after learning from your stream, you have convinced me about the Ocean Liner Service! Now, if I see it show show up early I'll try to get. Just need to keep up happy faces to prevent uprising and some farms to prevent famine. Harvard is situational in my experience. I take it just because I have extra rocks to spend but not enough science in that turn. Suez with only Vast 2 in your hand is still okay if all your opponents has colonization tech but you don't (and unlikely to win any colony in the future).
I've read the analysis about the return from investment in Transcontinental Railroad with Iron and they say like it takes 6 turns to breakeven so it is not worth it. Well, in reality I do not consider TRR based on the economic return alone. There are situations where you need to boost your strength but (1) do not have extra population to spare; (2) not enough happy faces; (3) no military tech show up yet; (4) not enough science to develop military tech; (5) not enough MAs; or (6) don't draw any tactic. 5 strength can help avoiding bad events or gain benefits from Foray or Cold War, or enough to be safe from aggression. These should also be counted as the benefit of the TRR.
More on Harvard. I think Harvard is the wonder that shines late in the game. Good for attacking and defending Age 3 wars. And you can use the yellow cards you draw in your last turn where you otherwise have unused civil actions. This can have huge implication in a game where scores are close.
@@iyakhoop Agree with the importance of happy faces for OLS. I think it works very well with St Pete's for that reason. Thanks for sharing your thoughts.
I've noticed more and more that a big chunk of the winner in my games is someone who got Himeji Castle or Louvre. Keeping corruption under control is the only downside and it's not that tough to do so. In exchange you're getting +5 culture and it's not a huge hit to your early development like the Taj. I've never seen someone NOT be a contender to win if they build Louvre and keep the blue cubes.
Also, re: Cook, i'd put him in D tier if Suez didn't exist. i've pulled off Cook w/ 8 colonies and a lot of other culture production from wonders...and that *still* got curbstomped by Bach. He has to jump through far more hoops for a much lower return.
That being said, the Cook/Suez combo has won every game i've ever seen with it, so that alone merits C tier i think.
Bach gives max. 6 culture (7 in Age 3) with 4(5) Operas (Acropolis), so how is that better than your 9 with colonies? Also these give you many things you could invest into military to get a war and destroy Bach if you don't have very bad luck with card draw.
But with Suez I agree, this would easily be the best combo if you manage to get many of them.
I'm surprised Harvard is rated so low, especially given that you rate the 2 science of Nobel at the opposite end of the scale. I know it takes resources and more civil actions to take Harvard than Nobel though. Also surprised you didn't mention at all Harvard's other bonus, which is small, but can be really useful, like others you mentioned, for defending against wars. So many times I take a yellow card and really wish I could play it the same turn rather than wait until next turn, and if a war is declared grabbing a patriotism or reserves, or obviously wave of nationalism if your opponent leaves it up there for you, can be a game saver.
I'm still finding my way through human games rather than AI games so evaluations do change, but I often find that my situation dictates which leader is good rather than the reverse anyway. Only a handful of leaders are universally good (and Gaudi is actually one, as you mentioned, that will always give you a decent bonus). Cook and Watt are great when you have the right setup, when you don't you simply ignore them and move right along.
For wonders I often struggle to make Transcontinental Railroad work. I have found myself (and seen an opponent do the same) take it and Coal then just struggle to get both up and running before the game is almost over. My opponent one game finished it only the final turn of the game (he wasn't a very advanced player though, it's true!). Suez is nice, but is to me the wonder-equivalent of Cook as a leader.
I often find myself skipping Age 2 wonders altogether though. In fact I've been stung by my own stupidity multiple times in taking Engineering Genius II, then leaving it right to the end of an Age 3 wonder to get maximum effect from that wonder only to find, oops, it's Age 4 and I forgot to use my Engineering Genius in time.
Thats true about the Harvard bonus. It can calculating a war way more difficult because your oppenent never knows, if you get a card that you can immediatly use. Overall it just seems that it´s a bonus that doesnt come into play as often.
Haha, yea Engineering Genius 2 can often feel like the worst one, because often its too late for your Age 2 wonders (if you even have one) and most of the time you finish your Age 3 Wonder in your last turn and then its gone...
Really cool video. This beginner strategies videos are great. I don't know of it would work, but maybe a video outlining general tips for each age.
Thank you for the feedback. That's actually something I am working on.
What? Harvard College is easily A. Not only you can react to every situation with instantly use yellow cards (have underrated this initially, but this is really good), 3 science is also always good. Even if you don't use the science at the moment and collect up to unrealistic 60, you can just drop all of that in Age 3 with Einstein/Jobs to get enormous amounts of culture and all the techs set up for nice events!
Also Gaudi with enough workers (OLS?) is great, as techs are really cheap in Age 3 if you build every Age 1 urban once plus 5 culture production.
Darwin shocks me, but then i'm the opposite of you - i almost never build 3 labs.
i'd switch Newton & Catherine, but will grant that Catherine is probably a good bit better in larger player counts. i mainly play 2P and prefer high culture there, so Catherine doesn't really help me defend myself like Napoleon does. As for Newton, i think any argument that puts Nobel in S tier must also put Newton in A; for me the strength of both of them is that they provide extra science in the exact part of the game when science matters most. Age II is just crammed with so many of the game's most important techs, though some of this may also be personal preference (e.g. you go for Age I governments far more often than i do, i'd rather wait for an Age II).
Weirdly i'd also put Maria in C, but this is just because i've had an unusually high winrate with her in multiplayer games. Think it's that the kind of build that's most likely to win those games (high population to be used for military) just happens to suit her perfectly. Could very easily be wrong about this, for sure!
Thank you as always for everything, even if i haven't been able to visit your streams lately - stay safe =)
The main point about Nobel vs Newton is the setup you need. Nobel will always fit your civ; you don't have science, Nobel doubles it out and, with the first chapter, 2 strength more! U already have science? Put those 2 here too please, will it ever be too much?
For me, not needing prerequisites is a great deal in this game
Hey Josh, nice to hear from you again, hope you are staying safe as well :)
In the beginning I actually had Darwin even higher, but I am glad that I put him on B instead. He is definitely one of the leaders that depends greatly on your playstyle. I just had a discussion with my brother and he really likes to play with religions, so he basically never gets Darwin.
And Newton was on A for a while as well, but then I decided to put both him and Darwin down to B and let Cat and Napoleon have the A tier. But that was a real struggle between those four. They are just all really solid.
I guess I will have to try Maria some more. These Tier lists are really great to get some nice strategy ideas and try other things.
Yea, Nobel doubling your science from 2 to 4 can often turn the game around. Newton is still great and maybe even has a bigger potential, but Nobel just always works.
@@DJParson I also think that Newton has a higher ceiling and can be a winning condition transitioning from him to an age III science based leader
Maria is very misunderstood, and can actually be pretty outrageous in a low resource game with the ocean liner. I won a high tier tournament game against some of the best just because of this interaction, when I had only library of alex after having my labs blown up early age II and never rebuilding. A game I had thought was lost for sure. 3 production for military being a vital component to finesse that victory too, and using her right until age IV.
I feel like you rate Gaudi too low. If you have good food and resource production then you can easily catch up on urban buildings without needing too much science. I have seen him work with great affect.
Interesting, i have heard that from quite a lot of people now. Guess I will have to try out Gaudi some more.
@@DJParson Gaudi is better than Shakespeare for sure.
Very close to mine, except I rank gaudi a bit higher and catherine a bit lower
I expected to see Louvre Museum at A, the point gain is amazing (easily 30-40 points) and "banking" six resources is very powerful -- either for military or to swipe an Age III wonder.
the problem is always corruption.
@@nguyenbach5430 I agree, but there are ways to deal with it. For example, upgrading to Iron/Coal, Justice System, Development Territory, Roman Roads ...
@@dtelad11 yes, i think it is A-tier wonder just because 6 resources banking will change the game
As I said, i felt so too in the beginning. But after a lot of games where it gave some troubles I could not really justify it to go any higher.
@@DJParson in the 1vs1 tournament deluks have won because of culture production. i really don't think, playing aggressive isn't always the right decision. maybe the Eiffel Tower or Louvre Museum produces more culture than age 3 wonder so you should definitely take those if you have early coal or iron
I think gaudi is 1 higher, made/seen him work more often. It's not hard to get 3-4 culture from him a turn and if you add all the Sci he saves you on research, it's almost like 1-2 a turn.
I'd rate Charles down 1, I find he is harder to do a setup around to make it pay off. As culture is his payoff, he only gains 2-3 which is avg without potential for higher like other A2 leaders. The econ bonus is about 1 CA or less a turn unless you already high CA. I wish he didn't have his downside, then I would say he is B.
Cat is a bit worst the higher counts you go, I'd drop her to B in 3p and C in 4p. The fact that her ability takes a Pol action instead of free like peri really hurts since most time if you are in lead, you want to play events. And when you. She would almost gain a full tier in rating if her ability was free imo
Wonder wise, I'm surprised you rate Harvard so low. I prefer it over SM if I had to pick because it is only needed for Newton. 2 SM cost 6 Sci, 4CA,10 rocks and gives +4 Sci. Harvard cost 5-6CA, 11 rocks and gives 3sci and 1 culture +ability. It cost a little more CA over 2 turns usually but the big bonus is that you don't have to have 6 Sci to get it going. Also the yellow card ability can be surprisingly helpful, especially lower player count in A3.
I would put Harvard as B, louve as C due to corruption and Kremlin D as its just hard to get setup to play it imo. Probably TCR as B, it's solid now that oil is more common in 3/4p and the +1 str but I don't like that it has 4 steps
A lot of people seem to like Gaudi more than me so I will try to test him out some more, maybe I am undervaluing him.
The thing I don't like about Harvard is that it would mean I am stuck with Philosophy when going into Age 3. And there are so many leaders that need Scientific Method or Computers so I don't wanna miss out on them.
DJParson A3 leader setup is good reason to at least have SM but I don’t think that discounts Harvard as a good side option. The A3 lab leaders work better with comp and only ok with SM, so it’s good to have as an option with SM but I don’t usually aim for those leaders first when I have SM.
2 SM or 2 philo+Harvard are equal setups going into A3 in my book. You can go for comp and/or lab leader with both. Also in games with high military, you can tear down philo easier
This game should make you jealous!
www.reddit.com/r/throughtheages/comments/gpweon/stier_leaders_game/
Haha, I saw that and I am super jealous! Only way to top that is to have all S Tier wonders as well :D