Militaristic, Industrious, Religious are so far ahead of the other traits

[asleepathewheel]

Originally posted by vmxa1
The early settler from a hut can come to any trait, I had only my second one ever on my current EMP game on std map, first hut I entered. This very powerful, if anyone can show that Expansion trait leads to more of them, then I will agree it is powerful. Otherwise, I don't really see it. It seems plain enought that you will get more elites and hence more leaders as a Mil civ and that is all game long and is very powerful. A key leader at a pivitol point in the game can be a major factor. At Monarch and above it may be your best chance to get some of the wonders in the first two ages. Especially above Monarch. It is no fun seeing the wonders build by the AI, one after another.

I don't know if its possible to quantify the possiblility of the expansionist to pop a settler.

Logically, since you only get good results from huts, you are more likely to get the supreme prize, right? Even if the settler chance is the same per hut pop, the fact that the overall hut results are better, I would think that would improve your chances.

I don't find mil to be that great, I fight enough battles that I don't have to worry about advancing to elites. And then the leader production is a wash with other traits.

(obviously I just tried to draw a parallel between leader production and settler popping)

but, hey, that's a gerat thing about the game, any trait can be argued for or against almost equally. I certainly don't miss those generic Civ2 civs.

[asleepathewheel]

Originally posted by Arrian
As to the topic, well, those are my favorite traits, but I think Artifex overstates his point.

What's ironic is that in
this thread Artifex thinks that militaristic stinks. I think this just proves that a little thought planning and strategerizing changes a trait from stinking into being one of the best .

[Wormwood]

I agree with asleepathewheel about expansionist being powerful early game. In my mind, Iroqouis, with exp/rel., and the excellent mounted warrior, would be much worse off if exp. was switched out for something else. The American combo of exp./ind. is viable, but the UU stinks. It all depends whether you intend to base your main military expansion around your UU or around the general units. England has a similar problem, exp./comm., a mix of a powerful early game trait with, in my opinion, a mediocre late game trait, and a terrible UU. At least America gets a cheap precision strike craft.

[Arrian]

In my mind, Iroqouis, with exp/rel., and the excellent mounted warrior, would be much worse off if exp. was switched out for something else.

Woah, I don't think I'd go that far. I'd switch expansionist for industrious (Egypt with MW's!) in a heartbeat. I'd switch it for militaristic too (Japan with MWs!).

-Arrian

[Zero]

mil / rel and rel / ind is still by far the most popular combo....

[WarpStorm]

I almost always do random pick and plan on continuing that in PTW. Unlike some, I feel that all civs are pretty balanced (even the English, now that commercial is good).

[Traelin]

Originally posted by vmxa1
It seems plain enought that you will get more elites and hence more leaders as a Mil civ and that is all game long and is very powerful. A key leader at a pivitol point in the game can be a major factor. At Monarch and above it may be your best chance to get some of the wonders in the first two ages. Especially above Monarch. It is no fun seeing the wonders build by the AI, one after another.

This is exactly how I feel. IMHO it's not even arguable how much better Mil. is above other traits, because it is so much easier to build Wonders on Emperor and Diety using it.

[vmxa1]

Think back on the games you have played and what civs were in the last 4 alive. USA/Russia/ZuluI/Iroquois, how many of these were among them. These civs seem to not do as well as others. What do they have in common, well they are all expansion civs. Further they are not often cited as the civ that people are concerned over, with the possible exception of Iroq. IF my perception is correct, it means that either that trait is not so great or at least the AI plays it poorly (worst than it does other traits).

[N. Machiavelli]

I tend to think towards the former. I play as America in approx 20% of the time (thanks more to the irresistible combo of MIL/COM/LEGION of the Romans and the MIL/SCI/PANZER o the Germans ). The American IND/EXP traits are a change of pace for me but are quite useful and playing as the Americans, even on Diety, is do-able. The Industrial trait assists with faster worker production outside of Democracy and the slightly-increased production; while the Expansionistic trait helps gaining that crucial early lead. The best/worst civ? No, simply a different set of advantages and a different way to play.

[GePap]

Industrious is still the best trait- the boost of being able to have 2 the infrastructure in the same time is incredible- the biggest possible boom to city production and economic growth. As someone said it, it is very hard going from industrious workers to non-industirous workers.

I used to believe expansionistic worthless- but then i payed the Americans, and know that is not true anymore- its a great trait for getting an early lead. I do agree that after the emdeival age, if not sooner, its benefits are few.

[Gen.Dragolen]

Based on the comments, I think that the Expansionist trait needs a little re-writing to make it more useful.

Personally, I think the religious/industrious for the Egyptians is the best combination, because you can churn out more combat units in less time than anyone else, if you have a decent starting location, and can work effectively with a poorer starting location because you can change the terrain faster.

Increasing the OCN (like double or something) for expansionist would be a good start, but I think that it should also do something for food production, since it is usually that factor which determines what units (read settlers) that you will produce. As a balance, it should also make the penalties for overcrowding more severe in terms of unhappiness, just to motivate the player a little more.

Guess I'll have to look at the defaults and see what kind of numbers I can find on what they have now and what changes we could make.


D.

[Artifex]

asleepatthewheel...

I think militaristic is the best trait. hands down.

I always play militaristic civs.

Japan and China are my two fav civs hands down.

It owns all the other traits by far IMHO. Especially at Emperor level and above where fighting is so important from the get go and wonders are so hard to come by unless rushed.

That thread you linked was tongue in cheek on my part..not literal...I was *****ing about having not gotten any leaders lately. I just had a run of bad luck and was venting.

The thread was formed as a question to elicit a response "maybe militaristic stinks?". Not a definitive statement such as "militaristic stinks". Once again it was a rant about my bad luck more than a statement on my part that I think the trait is bad. Sorry for your confusion.

(which I have done more than once on these boards in the past)

[Tuberski]

Militaristic is over-rated. More great leaders doesn't always work. It's still a hit or miss proposition.

[asleepathewheel]

Originally posted by Artifex
asleepatthewheel...

I think militaristic is the best trait. hands down.

I always play militaristic civs.

Japan and China are my two fav civs hands down.
It owns all the other traits by far IMHO. Especially at Emperor level and above where fighting is so important from the get go and wonders are so hard to come by unless rushed.

That thread you linked was tongue in cheek on my part..not literal...I was *****ing about having not gotten any leaders lately. I just had a run of bad luck and was venting.

The thread was formed as a question to elicit a response "maybe militaristic stinks?". Not a definitive statement such as "militaristic stinks". Once again it was a rant about my bad luck more than a statement on my part that I think the trait is bad. Sorry for your confusion.

I wasn't confused. I was pointing out the fact that you in the past have had problems with the "hands down" best trait, militaristic. And I was pointing out that other people have given you ideas on how to use the trait to its fullest. Thus the parallel to this thread (and its twin that you started)

I have no desire (right this moment) to debate the merits of each individual trait. I just think that to say that one is "hands down" anything in comparison to the others is a gross overstatement. You are of course, entitled to your opinion. Others and myself were merely trying to educate you in the use of the expansionist trait, if you have no desire to learn, that's your prerogative.

Have fun with your militaristic civs and I will have fun with my civs of whatever trait, that's the whole point after all.


edit: fixed quotes

[asleepathewheel]

I would of course be willing to debate the merits of each trait, it just would have to involve more than just "RELIGOUS RULEZZZZ" and "SCIENTIFIC BLOWZ"

(stopping now to try to avoid beating a dead horse)

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Tuberski
Militaristic is over-rated. More great leaders doesn't always work. It's still a hit or miss proposition.

Technically, it's a "numbers game," that is, a matter of constantly rolling the die to achieve results. The chance of getting at least one Great Leader with a given number of trials:

16 - 64.4%
32 - 87.3%
48 - 95.5%
64 - 98.4%

What this means is that to generate Great Leaders just keep fighting and winning Elite combats. The more you fight and win, the more Great Leaders you will get.

[vmxa1]

True nothing always works, even shooting someone in the head at point blank range does not always work, some survive. but do you like their chances?

[Tuberski]

I understand what you are saying, but, it is the same with militaristic as it is with expansionist- depends on the roll of the dice.

Bad rolls= useless trait.
Good rolls=Great trait.

sorry for the ryhyme.

[vmxa1]

Well maybe I need to give expansion another shoot. It may not be the case, but it sure seems like the higher the levels the huts are leaner and leaner. Doing a deity game now and all I see are barbs, maps, deserted.

[jshelr]

Playing on Emperor or Deity, I've come to value industrious and religious traits because they work best to help you survive, sometimes, and come from behind. You can't afford to build lots of workers, for example, and those you've got need to work fast. The AI won't let you get ahead and will nag at you with wars in the modern era, hoping to force you out of democracy. Religious is a must trait for close, hard-fought end games where you can't afford to fall behind on research but have to combat war weariness as well at higher levels.

[Artifex]

I find these 3 traits to be invaluable on diety level (which I play exclusively now). Maybe expansionistic is cool on low levels but at high levels a combo of these 3 traits are a must for a good shot at a win.

I find religious especially valuable with the happiness probelms on diety. To think expansionistic is better in this case is just silly.

[asleepathewheel]

Originally posted by Artifex
I find these 3 traits to be invaluable on diety level (which I play exclusively now). Maybe expansionistic is cool on low levels but at high levels a combo of these 3 traits are a must for a good shot at a win.

I find religious especially valuable with the happiness probelms on diety. To think expansionistic is better in this case is just silly.

Why so patronizing, Artifex? Don't have any other arguments?



Have you even tried expansionist on deity?

[vmxa1]

OK, I give up what three traits? Religous I guess is one, is Industrous another?

[asleepathewheel]

Originally posted by vmxa1
OK, I give up what three traits? Religous I guess is one, is Industrous another?

I think by "combo of these 3 traits", he means that he modded a civ to be religious, industrial, and militaristic. If so, I agree, that would be a pretty potent civ.

[Traelin]

Originally posted by asleepathewheel I think by "combo of these 3 traits", he means that he modded a civ to be religious, industrial, and militaristic. If so, I agree, that would be a pretty potent civ.

Nah, I think what he meant by "a combo of these 3 traits" was that you would choose a Civ that's either:

A) Mil., Rel.;
B) Mil., Ind.; or
C) Ind., Rel.