Quantitative Analysis of Civ Traits

[Whoha]

it all depends on how you play, though some of the advantages are hard to quantify.

Militarist: one game i had as germany, I was getting tons of leaders, by the modern era I was getting a leader EVERY TURN, how do you quantify something like that(atleast 40 elite modern armor all attacking, every turn, and I changed it so that leaders were airliftable),and of course, I used them to rush nukes, spaceship parts,whatever i felt like building.

as for expansionist, I wont say that few people know how to use it, its just that not being expansionist can be over come in single player. when mulitplayer runs around, and you are playing against someone else who knows how to fight, what will you do when he grabs all the luxurys/river city spots/resources, and you didnt. hopefully he will trade you(or extort money out of you) for construction(damn him getting all those huts), or you are stuck with a bunch of size 6 cities.

and of course, industrious overpowers any 1/2 priced buildings because your workers get those mines and rails up faster and the bonus from mines and rails works for all buildings, not to mention that captured workers work 2x as hard. Leaving 1 turn anarchy with religious, 3 of the same advances game after game after game with scientific(this would be more useful if they were random or if you could choose), and military promotions.

How much does commercial lower corruption? does it increase the Optimal city limit? does it help cities that are over the limit? does it lower waste with corruption? kinda hard to quantify something that isnt clearly stated exactly what it does.

[Pius Popprasch]

Originally posted by Whoha How much does commercial lower corruption? does it increase the Optimal city limit? does it help cities that are over the limit? does it lower waste with corruption? kinda hard to quantify something that isnt clearly stated exactly what it does.

It reduces Waste significantly.

Religious is stronger as depicted because of more strategic freedom. If I can switch my form of government according to the situation it can hardly be counted in gold.

Shields are more precious in my games than coins.

[Signa]

Just for the sake of information I'm going to rank the civilizations via the orginal points given to the traits in the first post of this thread...

1. Greece (30,460)
2. France (28,200)
3. Persia (24,450)
4. India (24,175)
5. China (21,660)
6. Iroquois & Britian (19,006)
8. Germany (17,910)
9. Babylon (17,635)
10. Rome (15,650
11. Egypt (15,375)
12. Russia (12,466)
13. Japan & Aztec (11,625)
15. America (10,206)
16. Zululand (6,456)

[punkbass2000]

I think you must have miscalculated, because the Iroquois are Religious+Expansionist, and should be last, not tid with England.

Anyway, if I had to place them in order:

1.Religious
2.Industrious
3.Militaristic/Scientific
5.Commercial/Expansionistic

Religious for all the reasons already discussed. I think Religious is the closest to being considered the best in terms of a concensus.

I think industrious is great for early expansion. In fact, I find it to be more useful for expansion than Expansionist. Discovering the land and actually settling it are two different things.

Militaristic is better if I'm planning to go to war a lot, Scientific if I'm not. Incidentally, Militaristic does NOT increase your leader promotions. It only increases your likelihood for getting elite promotions, which is far from the same thing. BTW, I think the techs you get with Scientific are probably the best ones anyway. I would almost always research Monotheism first, for within it lies the road to Cathedrals, the Sistine Chapel and JS Bach's Cathedral. I would probably pick Nationalism, though not necessarily. I might pick Steam Engine if I want to go industrial, or the other one if I want to go for hospitals. Though I wouldn't be inclined to research the things that come after Nationalism in any particular hurry, I think rifleman can be very important in most situations.

I lumped Commercial and Expansionist together because of alexman's thread on corruption. I used to think Commercial was better, because of how high corruption in Civ3 is, but after discovering that, essentially, it only increases your Optimal City number by one, I dropped it to a tie with Expansionistic. I was tempted to drop below Expansionistic, but given Expansionistic's uselessness, I just felt it would be wrong. As to whoever said they would get all the resources with Expansionist, I think you're sadly mistaken. Getting there first will not give you the ability to see strategic resources, and I find I explore nearly as quickly with or without an Expansionistic civ, as I always build 3 warriors first, unless I'm militaristic, in which case I build two archers. I would rather have three warriors because they can attack as well as explore, and I'm generally happy to have barbarians pop out of a goody hut, as my units seems to almost inevitably go elite after being attacked by three barbarians from a hut. I could only see Expansionistic as being useful if you're playing a Huge, Pangea map with less than the max number of civs.

I think multiplayer games will almost have to be played with random maps, to prevent people from picking civ based the map. But then again, I think multi games will need to be played without CSA's anyway, so I guess it doesn't matter. As a sidenote, despite my own list, I don't think the Egyptians are the best civ. I typically like to have Religious OR Industious, coupled with Militaristic OR Scientific, like the Aztecs or the Persians. I would say that overall, I like the Aztecs the best, awesome CSA's and an awesome UU.

[Karl]

As u also say the industrous and commercial traits r very good with your mathematics. BUT! Much is decided early on in the game. If 1 scout finds 1 settler early on ..how much is that worth in money.. well it s beyond any math. Or seing the terrain that is free for building and where to build early on , to see where your enemies have build and stop their expansion!! that is of far greater importance. So in a perfect world if u could build where u wanted without any distraction I would say you r absolutely right. On the other hand ..thats not going to happen! But I still liked your post and Im sure your aware of its limited aplications.

[xxa9892]

You dorks all have way to much time on your hands. have a party! get laid! get off the ****ing computer!!!!

nato is a virgin

=j6=

[joncnunn]

Something is definately wrong with France showing up higher than Persia. (Especally pre 1.29f, which that post was.)

Egypt & Babylon are also way too low on this list.

Originally posted by Signa
Just for the sake of information I'm going to rank the civilizations via the orginal points given to the traits in the first post of this thread...

1. Greece (30,460)
2. France (28,200)
3. Persia (24,450)
4. India (24,175)
5. China (21,660)
6. Iroquois & Britian (19,006)
8. Germany (17,910)
9. Babylon (17,635)
10. Rome (15,650
11. Egypt (15,375)
12. Russia (12,466)
13. Japan & Aztec (11,625)
15. America (10,206)
16. Zululand (6,456)

[joncnunn]

I have similar rankings:

1. Industrious
2. Religious
3. Scientfic
4. Militaristic
5. Expansionistic
6. Commercial

Industrious is excelent for both wars and peace.
(In time of war, build roads out faster to your oppoenent. In peace build roads, irrigation, mines, clear jungle, and cut forests)

Religious is also excelent for both wars and peace. (Half as much to buy that Temple in conquered territroy and also half as long to build them normally in your own territory. And a quick transition out of Despotism in early game, switching to Republic when the economy is ready for it, instant switch to Democracy, and should you war werrious become a problem, a switch to Communism.)

Scientific is more advangous to builders but those half cost libarys built earlier also reduce the revolts during a war.

Militerstic is more advangous to war monglers, but it does have a peacetime use with half price harbors.

Expansionistic is a pure early game advantage that needs to be used very wisely before it goes away.

Commercial just boosts the optimum number of cities you can have by 12.5% (Original Civ III 1.21f and earlier) and 25% (Original Civ III 1.29f & all PTW versions.) Main use is if your empire expanded lop-sideidley, you can build the FP further out if your Commerical. The other thing about it is the more cities you have starting in the industrial age, the more advangeousness this traight is.

Originally posted by punkbass2000

1.Religious
2.Industrious
3.Militaristic/Scientific
5.Commercial/Expansionistic

[Arrian]

My rankings have undergone a shift since first buying the game, but have been pretty stable for a while now:

1. Religious/Industrious tied. Both very powerful
3. Militaristic
4. Scientific
5. Commercial

Expansionist is left off the list due to the fact that it's such a wildcard depending on map settings. On my usual settings, it is near the bottom (we'll see how AU202 turns out).

-Arrian

[metalhead]

I have made excellent use of Scouts on tiny and small maps - I'm not sure why everyone thinks they are useless on small maps. Archipelago does hurt their usefullness some, but you still reap major benefits from scouts on a tiny continent map. I figure, on a tiny map, an early second city has a mammoth impact on the game, because so few cities will be built by any civ, and the cheap tech costs make an early 2nd city on a tiny map a game breaker. I would rank traits:

1. Industrious
2/3/4 Commercial, Expansionist, Religious
5. Scientific
6. Militaristic

Can't decide on #2, so I just lump em all together. I think commercial tends to get ignored as a powerful trait because it has no tangible benefit. No cheaper buildings, no extra units, no improved promotion. In fact, to even see the benefit, you would have to build up 2 seperate empires to comparable layout and size, and compare the corruption of the 2. Also, the other 5 traits will alter your gameplay to some extent - Commercial tends to be more "vanilla" in that there is really no real way to play a game that takes more advantage of its benefits. Any style will reap the benefits of this trait.

[Mazarin]

it always depends on how you play... being on a small map where an ancient rush will allow you conquest victory makes religious entirely useless while militaristic becomes even more important. IMHO, industrious is the only trait that really supports almost every strat you take. I'd even say that it is much more powerfull on smaller maps -just because the worker's lifes consist of two parts: moving and improving tiles -and there is no ind. benefit for moving.

One more thing: the intention of this thread is a "quantitative analysis" -something which can't be done whithout an interest rate! 10,000 gold or shields at the very beginning are much more valuable than in modern times.

[Nor Me]

If we're talking lists:
1. Industrious
2. Militaristic
3. Commercial
4. Scientific
5. Expansionist
6. Religious

I understand that the consus on Religious is somwhat different but I find its bonus comes when I least need it.
It would take at least a new thread to justify this so I won't

Nato underestimates the quantitative value of commercial now.

[Arrian]

Ooh, someone willing to stick up for the commercial trait? Go for it, make a new thread. It's always interesting to discuss these things.

Vel did a thread extolling the virtues of being Industrious. I did a thread on the power of Religious. Commercial, despite its boost in the 1.29 patch, is still generally viewed as a weak trait (perhaps because it is so difficult to quantify, as metalhead pointed out). Prove us wrong.

-Arrian

[Pyrodrew]

I firmly disagree with this notion that Religious is "clearly" the best trait in terms of a concensus. Posts in this thread & other threads clearly show Industrious to be a great rival, if not the superior.

Industrious is great in war & peace.
Industrious is great in the early game (building settlers faster) & all ages (except maybe modern).

My ranking (may vary some due to map,etc) would be:

1.Industrious
2/3. Militaristic/Scientific
4.Religious
5/6.Commercial/Expansionist

[Zurai]

One thing I'm curious about in the initial post. Nato, you stated that 1 shield in game was worth 4 gold, and yet you calculated all of your values as if 1 shield = 1 gold. Why? I think if you used the proper values there, you'd get a much different picture of the 'quantitative worth' of some of the traits.

[punkbass2000]

"You can buy shields at a rate of 1 shield for 4 gold, or you can produce gold at a rate of 1 gold for 4 shields (after economics). Therefore, I am counting 1 gold as of equal worth to 1 shield. When added together I will call these gold/shields."

[Lord Merciless]

My ranking:
1. Industrious/Militaristic
3. Religious
4. Commercial
5. Scientific
6. Expansionist

The reason why I rank Militaristic so high is that I only play at Emperor+ levels where warmongering is the easy path to victory. Getting more elite units quickly and thus more GLs is a must. Also, Militaristic gives you 4 cheap buildings: Barracks, Harbors, Walls, and Airports.

I also think Commercial deserves a better look. For really big empires, Commercial can make a huge difference in your income and shield produced.

[Zurai]

Originally posted by punkbass2000
"You can buy shields at a rate of 1 shield for 4 gold, or you can produce gold at a rate of 1 gold for 4 shields (after economics). Therefore, I am counting 1 gold as of equal worth to 1 shield. When added together I will call these gold/shields."

This is a flawed analysis. Why? Ask anyone who plays on Emperor/Diety - Wealth is *not worth it*. 1 gold per 4 shields is NOT an appropriate value. Any high-level player will micromanage producing cheap military units to disband into another city instead of using Wealth, even though it's inefficient. Why? Because it's more efficient than Wealth.

Plug 1 shield = 4 gold into the formulas and you'll see a much different (and more accurate, IMO) picture.

[punkbass2000]

I may be wrong, but don't you only get 1/4 of a units shields when you disband it? Wouldn't it, therefore, be more efficient to use wealth, at least if your shield count is a multiple of four or if there aren't any units that divide into 4 well? (like a warrior only gives 2 shields, but a spearman gives 5, even though the spearman only costs twice as much to build.)

[Mazarin]

punkbass: no, wealth is not efficient at all: e.g. you need 400 shields to receive 100 gold by transforming producion to wealth...if you want to rush-buy a building , these 100 gold would only be worth 25 shields. So you loose 93,75% of your investment when producing wealth and rush-buying -compared to about 75% when disbanding units.

[punkbass2000]

Good point.

[sabrewolf]

(bump)

a really old thread, but it would be interesting if someone would find the time to do a new quantitative analysis of all traits. most have changed in one or the other way and there are 2 new traits.

[East Street Trader]

The size of the map, the configuration of the land masses, the level chosen to play, the neighbouring civs, events as the game unfolds and half a hundred other factors will affect the value of the various advantages.

On a huge map with just a couple of large landmasses that initial explorer has the chance to get your civ very firmly established. On a small, all island map or if he encounters an early barb he may be next door to useless.

Getting an advance when you enter the next age may turn a good game into a big win if you have achieved a tech lead, if you are lagging behind it will do very little for you indeed.

Cheaper barracks are nice - unless you are on a big continent and get Sun Tsu's.

The fundamental point has got to be that each trait offers opportunities to exploit the benefit conferred within the context of any particular game. Self evidently each is a good in itself. I doubt that any attempt to average out all the possible scenarios could hope to establish that any one comes out clearly ahead of any other.