Yah Augustus's traits got switched. so any ideas on what the new trait combo will be?

I have no idea. I think he's old trait combo was good for him.

From the Chat After Party.txt in the sticky thread in the top of the forum:

(Hyoga) Thanks a lot Jon. I'm wondering also if you could tell us what Augustus' new traits are since it was mentioned that he was changed.
(s0ulst0rms) is there a way i can "set" the automated workers to always build cottages on grassland, for example?
(thenooblet22) was that Mayhaps for my question?
(@Gogf) hm
(@Gogf) I don't even remember Augustus's new traits
(@Gogf) I doubt anybody in here does :p
(+Kael) later all
(+FXS_JonShafer) IMP IND

I'd call that a nerf :(

IMP suxors.

Why imperialist from all traits?

I'd call that a nerf :(


Agreed. Augustus was very powerful, and could easily pull off both cultural and militaristic victories fairly easy. Of all that I have heard about BtS, this disturbs me the most... well, after those silly sci-fi scenarios that I will never ever play.

I will miss thee, old Augustus.

AC as he currently is, is decidedly op. Probably the most powerful leader, although HC is also extremely powerful.

So, a nerf is definitely in order. What strikes me is the industrial trait here. Imperialistic makes sense I s'pose and can go hand in hand with praets (just use GGs on cr3-leadership praets, yummy!). But industrious? With stone, that's nice. Land the pyramids, park it in PS and away you go. But I don't foresee myself ever getting wonder-addicted when I have praets in my back-pocket...

Well... maybe there will be a new Imp/Cre leader so the ones who miss the old Augustus can play with him.

Daxn, organized/creative is just fun to play.

Seriously, I don't understand why everything has to be nerfed. This is a game! Once in a while I like to play an invincible leader for fun. Bulldozing my enemies and taking cities with my praets stack of doom, then chop for library/court => new productive cities, further expansion. It's fun!

For the balance in MP, people may just set up house rule to exclude a few overpowering leaders. So what so imbalanced?

Red coat is nerfed, cossacks nerfed, Catherine nerfed.... can I have some fun?

If you don't want a finely balanced game for once, go ahead and edit the XML files to accommodate your wishes (don't forget to backup ;)). The default rule set should be as balanced as possible.

Maybe the new Org/Cre leader will be Hammurabi?

Maybe the new Org/Cre leader will be Hammurabi?

Those traits would fit him like glove to hand, I think you're right.

just play the new org/cre leader as the Romans. problem solved :)

AC as he currently is, is decidedly op. Probably the most powerful leader, although HC is also extremely powerful.

So, a nerf is definitely in order. What strikes me is the industrial trait here. Imperialistic makes sense I s'pose and can go hand in hand with praets (just use GGs on cr3-leadership praets, yummy!). But industrious? With stone, that's nice. Land the pyramids, park it in PS and away you go. But I don't foresee myself ever getting wonder-addicted when I have praets in my back-pocket...

I agree. Augustus just went from being one of my favorite and most fun leaders to play (not to mention most powerful), to one of the worst leaders in the game. Imperialistic is sorely lacking any punch and industrious... Why build wonders when you can claim them? Basically all Augustus has now is cheaper forges and some extra GGs. Julius Caesar is still all right, but he's not rockin' like he used to be either. The Roman UB isn't so hot either.

What a way to piss on a civ. When I get the xpack I'll see who has what and make my own adjustments, give Augustus back his old traits.

One more thing: How sure are we that he's Imp/Ind now?

I for one am pleased about these new traits for Augustus. I always preferred playing Julius Caesar of the two Roman leaders, and now having them both imperialistic rather than both Organised adds a bit more aggression to them both. As for Creative, I never felt too culturally minded whilst conquering city after city with the Prats. With Industrious I'm seeing cheaper forges, cheaper Oracle, cheaper Pyramids, Heroic Epic, Westpoint, Pentagon. I'm sold!

If you don't want a finely balanced game for once, go ahead and edit the XML files to accommodate your wishes (don't forget to backup ;)). The default rule set should be as balanced as possible.

A lot of players are casual players like me. We want a ready-made product, put it in our computer and just play, without thinking about editing anything. Just like I prefer the old Qin (Fin/Ind), but they changed it to a weaker protective/Ind combo I'll just play it.

A game has to be balanced, it's true. However, as long as the imbalance is not totally overwhelming, you don't want a socialistic approach for developing a game. If there is an artificial-dream program like in Total Recall I bet somebody will get bored of playing the richest, most handsome guy in the world, and go for playing some more difficult roles for challenge. Augustus is somewhat overpowering, but not to the point so game-breaking. I actually find Huaya (fin/ind/quecha/terrace) even more powerful in SP. But it's good once in a while playing the stronger leaders. It's the same mentality sports fans enjoying the ride of sticking with some dynasty teams.

Daxn, organized/creative is just fun to play.

Seriously, I don't understand why everything has to be nerfed. This is a game! Once in a while I like to play an invincible leader for fun. Bulldozing my enemies and taking cities with my praets stack of doom, then chop for library/court => new productive cities, further expansion. It's fun!

For the balance in MP, people may just set up house rule to exclude a few overpowering leaders. So what so imbalanced?

Red coat is nerfed, cossacks nerfed, Catherine nerfed.... can I have some fun?

Wow, if Augustus traits according to you was overpowring or invincible then how do you explain the God like civs in this game? such as... Inca Fin Ind--Victoria - Financial Imperialistic, Elizabeth-Fin Philosophical or any other Financial civ leader. Firaxis always has to nerf or change Rome every expansion for some odd reason. I did like both of Caesars old traits compared to the new traits.

Financial trait or the agg trait rule online play.

I for one am pleased about these new traits for Augustus. I always preferred playing Julius Caesar of the two Roman leaders, and now having them both imperialistic rather than both Organised adds a bit more aggression to them both. As for Creative, I never felt too culturally minded whilst conquering city after city with the Prats. With Industrious I'm seeing cheaper forges, cheaper Oracle, cheaper Pyramids, Heroic Epic, Westpoint, Pentagon. I'm sold!

Does industrious speed up national wonders? i am not too sure about that. I dont really understand your point. Creative has nothing to do with being "culturally minded" ,it was great because you didnt have to bother with monuments and therefore mysticism. You could just concentrate on attacking. You say you will now build the oracle and the pyramids as AC - THAT is being "culturally minded"

I think Agustus may be stronger now. He's industrious (yes he can build National wonder faster) and his unique building (market or grocer, can' remember which) add 25% to great person production. He is now the closest to an industrious/philosophical leader we have. One the other hand he quickly builds only forges faster as opposied to courthouses/Lighthouses/Libraries/Theaters/Collosiums.

OK, it's the forum (upgrade of the market) which you get with Currency. Sounds like a bigtime great person factory while Prats are running amuck generating faster great generals. Add building the great wall quickly, I say he's more formadable than creative/organized.

I was extremely [pissed] about the trait change, but now I'm beginning to wonder...

Imperialistic means faster settler production and more GG's, which is good for early expansion to that iron tile, and more GG's is, well... always good. :D

Industrious instead of creative means he won't get free culture, but now all he has to do is research mysticism and pull off Stonehenge and voila! Free culture in every city. Maybe it'll end up being better.

The problem I have is that I like traits to reflect the person in reality, e.g. Hannibal, Napoleon, Washington are all charismatic military leaders. Imperialistic fits Augustus well, but industrious? Questionable. Creative does for sure, though. Virgil, anyone? Renovation of Rome? "I found her a city of brick and left her a city of marble." (Of course, maybe that could be construed as industrious. :D)

I never really appreaciated the Imperialistic trait until I played Ghengis as a warlord (marathon/huge maps). That Agressive trait and fast generals is amazing if logically placed. First general went as an instructor with the heroic epic, next two went as instructors in the next two most productive cities and the next two generals as Military academies in those two productive cities. Add the Ger, plus agressiveiveness, theology/vassalage plus west point in the heroic epic city and I was pumping out Cavalry units with 17 experience points at a quick pace. After that game I never underestimated the imperialist trait.

In the chat it was mentioned that the effects of the Civics have been tweaked for re-balance in BtS. Nobody asked if the traits also have been tweaked. (All that was asked is whether there are any new traits - no.) Thus, it could be that Imperialistic has been improved and AC is even more wonderful than ever.

Imperialistic trait on a leader that is celebrated for being the one with the initiative of creating Pax Romana(Peace). Meh...
. Organized is also a trait that fits Octavian Perfectly. Organized Industrious would be another good choice.

Imperialistic fits Augustus well,

I disagree.

I think they wanted both Roman leaders to be imperialists in the same way both Khans are Aggressive. Not the best reason, mind you, but you have to admit Imperialist does fit them... but other traits would be better.

Changing his original traits is idiotic. Organised creative was the best trait combo historically accurate to Augustus. Not imperialistic.........

Cre /org or org /industrious

To be honest I think you can take alot of trait combos and apply them to the caesars except Protective and Spiritual. I think Industrious for the Caesars is overpowered because of the unique building just like the agressive trait would be overpowered because of the unique unit.

I think they wanted both Roman leaders to be imperialists in the same way both Khans are Aggressive. Not the best reason, mind you, but you have to admit Imperialist does fit them... but other traits would be better.

Actually he is one of the few leaders that imperialistic does not fit. Since most other leaders included , conditioned imperialistic approaches. And of course Organized is the best trait for Augustus . There few instances where a trait fitted so much a leader . Organized was meant for Augustus.

Please...

Honestly, I think Creative/Organized was the best fit... I'm just saying that I think Firaxis may have gone the same path as they did with the Khans (sadly in this case). Some of the others are quite logical, but not as nice as the original combo.

Expansive or Imperialist could work for any number of them. Financial might fit Diocletian (but again Organized would be better), Philosophical was made for Marcus Aurelius, and Spiritual of course for Constantine. It's very doubtful that we'll be seeing any of these new leaders in BtS, though.

Wow, if Augustus traits according to you was overpowring or invincible then how do you explain the God like civs in this game? such as... Inca Fin Ind--Victoria - Financial Imperialistic, Elizabeth-Fin Philosophical or any other Financial civ leader. Firaxis always has to nerf or change Rome every expansion for some odd reason. I did like both of Caesars old traits compared to the new traits.

Financial trait or the agg trait rule online play.

It's not just his traits, it's the traits combined with the Praetorians... Praetorians kick ass at taking cities and Creative and Organized are some the best traits to get conquered cities running quickly. +2 culture/turn for an easy culture pop without building anything, fast Libraries to get some science going and fast Courthouses to bring the maintenance down. You could also add the cheap Theatres and Colosseums... If you're running 20% culture, you get like 5 extra happy faces, 6 with Dye. War weariness? Yearning to join motherland? Oppression? All easily countered. Augustus can (or dare I say, could) just keep going and going, dominating everyone with his Praetorians and turning his freshly conquered cities profitable in no-time.

Being a huge romafile, I'm saddened to see Augustus nerfed so much. Imp is such a weak trait. I've found that often it doesn't help nearly as much as one would think it could. I often just crash my economy. While I can see industrious as very fitting for Augustus, Organized is a much better fit then imp. It's too bad both Roman leaders suggest a war path now instead of one favoring a building path.

Going back over the chat log, I found something interesting:

<Hyoga> Hmm... IMP IND from CRE ORG is a pretty radical change. Do you know why it was done Jon?
<Steiner-Davion> its cool, I can understand why
<FXS_JonShafer> s0ulst0rms: Bombers are pretty powerful, so it was a balance issue
<SL> What is this FInal Frontier of which you speak?
* Guest740 has quit IRC (Quit: Leaving)
<SL> Final! Eep.
<FXS_JonShafer> kokurin: I'm flattered, really ;)
<DaveMcW> also, carriers have too short a runway for bombers :P
<chickenfur> its civ in space
<chickenfur> :)
<Gogf> Lots of traits got shuffled, Hyoga

Yet elsewhere they say only Augustus got changed... but Gogf is a beta tester... I don't know...

I am more angry about their decision to remove Organized. From Augustus . Why ?

This is the reason I wish there were more traits so leaders could have 3 traits instead of 2--more diversity and less "well so-and-so can't have that combo because so-and-so already has those". Would've been interesting if civs had their own seperate group of traits as well.

Right now the people who are saying Augustus' new Imp/Ind combo is more powerful than his previous 2 traits are just n00bs, to put it plainly and bluntly.

Noob, huh? I have over 1300 posts and have been playing since October '05... I wouldn't call myself a noob. ;)

What I am saying is that the new combo (especially if traits have been tweaked) could end up being powerful, though not as powerful as it was originally.

What I don't understand is if Augustus' traits were so bad, then what's the deal with leaders like Boudicca and Elizabeth? They are just as easily "overpowered", as some would say, as Augustus was with Cre/Org. Hell, Boudicca's trait combo is likely to be game breaking; CR3 and Str1 swordsmen and maceman running around like over bred rabbits, backed by barrage 3 catapults and trebuchets.

Noob, huh? I have over 1300 posts and have been playing since October '05... I wouldn't call myself a noob. ;)

What I am saying is that the new combo (especially if traits have been tweaked) could end up being powerful, though not as powerful as it was originally.

I may be wrong, but I think Firaxes said they aren't modifying any of the traits. Apparently some beta tester briefly mentioned trait or leader changes, but I'll wait to see what happens myself.

I bet they switched Augustus' traits to put the crea-org combo to one of the new fertile crescent leaders.

I've been getting conflicting information on traits... some say they haven't been modded, others say they've been tweaked... one said several leaders got an overhaul, others said only Augustus did.

Chalk up one for Firaxis. That was a helluva (dis)information session. :D

I never understand the overpowered arguments. But then again I don't play multiplayer. The nerfs just make single player less fun is all I know. The game is still fun it's just sad knowing that something I used to use isn't as good as it used to be.

Expansive or Imperialist could work for any number of them. Financial might fit Diocletian (but again Organized would be better), Philosophical was made for Marcus Aurelius, and Spiritual of course for Constantine. It's very doubtful that we'll be seeing any of these new leaders in BtS, though.

Always wanted to see Constantine, the man whose name I always give when asked who is the most important ruler in Western history (subjective, I know). Would give him Mehmed's traits if Mehmed didn't already have 'em. Difficult to understand why they'd give a 2000 year old + civilization like the Romans two leaders who were alive at the same time (Augustus being the clear first choice), esp. when they have so many great leaders to choose from (even with 1000 years of Byzantium knocked off, whenever that's supposed to start).

As for Augustus' traits: I think they're appropriate, even if neither of these specific traits is one of the best little.

Great i created a topic which i can't even follow... I'm leaving my own topic for you guys :)

And yes Hammurabi might be the new op leader now.

I think Augustus without Organized is like Genghis khan with peaceful traits.

1. To anyone who says "OMG I can't play with an overpowered leader in single player no more": go down a difficulty level, or mod the game. FFS you don't want to play a game you want a cakewalk :P

2, Augustus was overpowered. No question about it. He got nerfed. It happens ALL the time in games nowadays, it's called tweaking.

I can't believe all you people.. :S Firaxis makes a little balance change and it's like they just said they are gonna withdraw the game or something. The fuss over the HRE is just as sad.. some people get more pissed off over that than if they read in the newspaper that 1000000 people died somewhere , i mean, wtf?

Anyone left on these forums who actually likes to play a strategy game ? They could replace England with San Marino and call Huayna Capac Monkey Face and I wouldn't care...

[/rant]

It's not just his traits, it's the traits combined with the Praetorians... Praetorians kick ass at taking cities and Creative and Organized are some the best traits to get conquered cities running quickly. +2 culture/turn for an easy culture pop without building anything, fast Libraries to get some science going and fast Courthouses to bring the maintenance down. You could also add the cheap Theatres and Colosseums... If you're running 20% culture, you get like 5 extra happy faces, 6 with Dye. War weariness? Yearning to join motherland? Oppression? All easily countered. Augustus can (or dare I say, could) just keep going and going, dominating everyone with his Praetorians and turning his freshly conquered cities profitable in no-time.

You answer it for me. Thanks :goodjob:

That energized bugbunny style (keep going, keep going....) will be something I'll really miss.

No. It's not that I am angry about it. It is that if something was overpowered (which is always debateable) they should have never made it that way to begin with. Because now it sucks knowing that you used to be able to do certain things that you can't anymore. However I still live with it because I don't make very big deals out of these things.

And excuse me but I have more or less the same success rate with all of the civilizations, which is exactly why I never understand ANY of the overpowerment arguments. Some leaders are better for doing certain things but that is suppose to be the whole point of having leader traits. I addressed the fact that I play single player and have never played multiplayer and this could be why I don't get it.

1. To anyone who says "OMG I can't play with an overpowered leader in single player no more": go down a difficulty level, or mod the game. FFS you don't want to play a game you want a cakewalk :P

2, Augustus was overpowered. No question about it. He got nerfed. It happens ALL the time in games nowadays, it's called tweaking.

I can't believe all you people.. :S Firaxis makes a little balance change and it's like they just said they are gonna withdraw the game or something. The fuss over the HRE is just as sad.. some people get more pissed off over that than if they read in the newspaper that 1000000 people died somewhere , i mean, wtf?

Anyone left on these forums who actually likes to play a strategy game ? They could replace England with San Marino and call Huayna Capac Monkey Face and I wouldn't care...

[/rant]

The people responsible for 99% of the nerfing are those uber-players who somehow manage to squeeze the Pyramids out in 10 turns in a non-Industrious civ without stone. They know all the little tricks and spend 3 hours on a single turn, and most happily slam anyone who hates micromanagement and doesn't play on Deity. But then they run right over everyone else anyway, so I don't see what the issue is.

:sarcasm:

1. To anyone who says "OMG I can't play with an overpowered leader in single player no more": go down a difficulty level, or mod the game. FFS you don't want to play a game you want a cakewalk :P

2, Augustus was overpowered. No question about it. He got nerfed. It happens ALL the time in games nowadays, it's called tweaking.

I can't believe all you people.. :S Firaxis makes a little balance change and it's like they just said they are gonna withdraw the game or something. The fuss over the HRE is just as sad.. some people get more pissed off over that than if they read in the newspaper that 1000000 people died somewhere , i mean, wtf?

Anyone left on these forums who actually likes to play a strategy game ? They could replace England with San Marino and call Huayna Capac Monkey Face and I wouldn't care...

[/rant]

So is it such a sin some game customers want to preserve some fun playing a game? I can also say that if you think a leader is OP, why don't you use it to play one level higher or mod the game? The same thing can be argued either way. You guys who care about absolute game balance are mostly experts, right? A lot of lay players like me just want to having a good ride once in a while.

The truth is, the creative/organized combo is not THAT overpowering. It's just somewhat overpowering when considering the synergy with the praets. It's not like pulling out the World builder, you still need skills to use Augustus to win the game. More importantly, I feel creative/organized/praet combo can give me that Augustus' consistent empire expansion role-playing experience. Other traits can't.

Re. MP games, first, I don't have exact data, but I bet more people playing SP games than MP games. In SP, you pick a stronger leader, a weaker leader, it's up to you and is your personal choice. As long as a leader is not overwhelmingly overpowering and will provide some challenge, balance is not a top priority issue in a non-expert player like me. Even in MP games Augustus can be countered. And if you feel really uncomfortable set a house rule to exclude him. There are so many leaders in BtS.

A game player certainly cares about a game, we all want the game to do right. But in terms of what is right then some care more about balance, and some want a bit more naive fun. Or tell me why YOU sound like 1000000 people died somewhere? You don't care then you wouldn't post.

hopefully/probably they'll give that trait combo to Sulleiman or Hammurabi so you can play those traits with as a roman leader and you all will quit whinning

"Balance" and "overpowered" are highly debatable anyway. I usually do random when choosing leader/civ, and every now and then I'll draw Augustus... but in an isolated start!

I think people tend to use certain strategies with certain leaders/civs exclusively and this is what spawns the 'overpowered' argument. Like if someone comes home from work and they decide they want to go on an early age conquest spree--they pick Augustus because he is the most specialized leader/civ combo for such a goal. Likewise, Ramesses could easily be argued as overpowered if you desire a cultural victory. It depends on how YOU choose to play.

What annoys me most now is how Augustus basically has no specialization anymore. Imp/Ind? Okay... a purely aggressive trait (which I find the Roman leaders not aggressive enough to begin with) and a trait that accommodates a hermit-esque builder. Yeah, whatever..

Another thing about original Augustus was the prime of his traits. His traits were pretty much all up front. Meaning once you got past the classical and early medieval age his traits quickly lost potency. I wouldn't call that overpowered.

Unless Augustus wins the game before the classical era ends.

...Hence the argument for all the American leaders being underpowered.

I've never seen anyone call the American leaders underpowered...

Well, they don't say that exactly... they say they're terrible leaders for two reasons (always): the UU and UB "suck." Mostly this is due them becoming available so late.

In other words, "What if someone else wins before the modern era starts?" which is a play on what Slobadog said. Hence, American leaders are underpowered for the rest of the (pre-modern) game, lacking both a UU and UB.

This is how most people feel. Personally, I think Washington is one of the best, and Roosevelt holds his own.

I've got to say it is threads like this that make me love CivFanatics. Reasonable discussion about gameplay mechanics and underlying philosophy WITHOUT juvenile personal attacks and name calling. Good form chaps.

My own thoughts on the trait change are mixed. The adaptation of "Creative" to "Industrial" is, I believe, a great improvement. I remember reading that Augustus bragged about finding Rome brick and leaving it marble. I believe that the spirit of his massive public works projects (resulting in the Ara Pacis, the Forum of Augustus, and the Temple of Ceasar) are more accurately conveyed by the "wonder-oriented" Industrious trait rather than the more general Creative trait. I think the adaptation of "Organized" to "Imperialistic" is harder to justify but it is worth noting that he was Rome first Emperor. Gameplay mechanics aside, this is a non-trivial point. I will also admit sympathy to the parallel this creates between Julius and his adopted heir.

As a bit of a private note, I find Augustus to be one of the most inspiring figures in human history. I only wish I had the time to learn more about him. Any suggestions for condensed reading from our oh-so-well-read community? :D

There are a number of introductory texts on the Roman Empire which you might want... One is a general history called The Romans: From Village to Empire. However, the authors are somewhat unsympathetic to Augustus, portraying his accession to power in light of the tremendous bloodshed he took to acquire it. Having said that, his achievements speak for themselves.

Bet you thought you wouldn't get a serious answer... :)

Well, they don't say that exactly... they say they're terrible leaders for two reasons (always): the UU and UB "suck." Mostly this is due them becoming available so late.

In other words, "What if someone else wins before the modern era starts?" which is a play on what Slobadog said. Hence, American leaders are underpowered for the rest of the (pre-modern) game, lacking both a UU and UB.

This is how most people feel. Personally, I think Washington is one of the best, and Roosevelt holds his own.

i think that was one of the strong reasons to add advanced starts to the game, because with such a late UU and UB and decent traits, not many people play as the americans

If they made Lincoln Industrious/Philosophical, I guarantee you more people would play. ;)

Even Industrious/Charismatic would make people take a second look.

I've got to say it is threads like this that make me love CivFanatics. Reasonable discussion about gameplay mechanics and underlying philosophy WITHOUT juvenile personal attacks and name calling. Good form chaps.

My own thoughts on the trait change are mixed. The adaptation of "Creative" to "Industrial" is, I believe, a great improvement. I remember reading that Augustus bragged about finding Rome brick and leaving it marble. I believe that the spirit of his massive public works projects (resulting in the Ara Pacis, the Forum of Augustus, and the Temple of Ceasar) are more accurately conveyed by the "wonder-oriented" Industrious trait rather than the more general Creative trait. I think the adaptation of "Organized" to "Imperialistic" is harder to justify but it is worth noting that he was Rome first Emperor. Gameplay mechanics aside, this is a non-trivial point. I will also admit sympathy to the parallel this creates between Julius and his adopted heir.

As a bit of a private note, I find Augustus to be one of the most inspiring figures in human history. I only wish I had the time to learn more about him. Any suggestions for condensed reading from our oh-so-well-read community? :D

I agree with you about moving him to industrious-- building is the name of the game for good ol' Augustus. I am a bit peeved about the move from organized to imperialistic. One of the major feats he was known for was streamlining Roman bureaucracy, thus reducing lost tax revenue from waste and graft (fits with Organized's reduction in civic upkeep). He was not a great general, and although the empire grew during his reign, he specified in his will that the empire should not grow beyond its current boundaries after a devastating and embarrassing defeat in Germany. This doesn't fit too well with the Imperalistic trait. Anyway, I feel Organized was a better fit (yes, I know that Ind/Org is taken).

Augustus is perhaps the most fascinating ruler in history to read, because he wrote the book on gaining and maintaining stable power as an autocrat. He wasn't a brash, musclehead tyrant, but a thoughtful, calculating statesman who out-witted and out-lived such historical powerhouses as Marc Antony (DEFINITELY a Imperalistic kinda guy), Cicero, and and others. I highly recommend Augustus by Antony Everitt, which is suited for the general reader.

The new Creative/Organized leader is Zara Yaqob of Ethiopia. See the thread New African Civ? for details.

So in short, two leaders in the game most deserving of the organized trait (Augustus and Qin) don't get the trait. Almost can't believe that.:confused: