Greetings CivFanatics! This might be old news to some of you but I thought I'd open a thread for discussion regardless. I've been browsing this forum for a while and very often come across posts saying the imperialistic trait (and protective, but that's for another time) is almost worthless. I have to disagree. Recently I've been playing games with Genghis Khan (AGG/IMP) and he turned out to be a much better leader than I had thought in advance. Why you may ask, well, I'll get to that below.

50% :hammers: boost on settler is very powerful in the beginning phase of the game. Some might frown and say that it doesn't matter much as food is a huge part of the production, but my discovery/usage of this bonus is basically to chop settlers while growing my city and amassing an army to fight the barbs. One of the big problems of early expansion is the fact that settlers halt growth, but if you research bronze working and get a worker out you can simply chop some forests (BTS often has starting spots with many many forests) and switch to the settler production the turn the chopping completes. This all sounds good in theory, but when I put it to practice the results were even better than I had imagined. I found myself expanding at the pace of the deity AI, and much faster than immortal AIs.

At higher difficulties waiting for that population of 5 before producing settlers might not cut it as the good spots will already be taken on crowded maps like for instance Pangea. You will also be able to start growing your cottages sooner. This has a lot of micro-management to it, but I like that personally. For extra boost you can switch to every hammer tile (especially if your capital starts with bronze and several hills) and go to starving mode during the settler turn only to switch back to food while producing an archer or an axeman.

The reason why I went for Genghis Khan is the aggressive trait which has a lot of synergy to this strategy and the fact that he starts with the wheel which is a requirement for pottery (cottages) and to hook up bronze but also starting with hunting (scout) which will map out your land faster and know where to put your cities. Building such a huge empire makes conquest a very viable option. You can start by razing barbarian cities and gain a lot of cash to hold the upkeep for your military.

You might say that this strategy will become less efficient as the game progresses and that's true. However there's the other part of the trait, the 100% bonus to great generals. By having all this land you're very likely to be able to out-produce your opponents throughout the game and able to war a lot. This means that you'll have even more of those GGs which is a good bonus for the entire game. You will probably suffer a little in tech early on, but don't worry too much about that - "land is power", and those cottages will get better and better. Some traits require thinking outside the box and are not as obvious/straightforward as for instance financial.

Feel free to agree/disagree and discuss my ideas. I hope I didn't scare you all away with the lenght of my post I was planning on making it short but it seems I got a little carried away on the small stuff. :blush:

I have to agree with you on the imperialistic trait. I play Bts on prince level and for the longest time i considered this one of the lesser traits. Recently I have started trying to play the game in a variety of new ways and have discovered that I totally underated imperialistic leaders. Gengis is one of my new favs. Try him out on unrestricted leaders with the zulu civ. This allows for some fast early expansion with less maintnance costs. Imperialistic = cheaper settlers. Agr = cheaper ikhandas (barracks). The ikhandas will help to hold down city costs from that quick early expansion until CoL comes online.

Oh, by the way this is my first post in any forum ever :goodjob:

I'm not a big fan of Imperialistic. Generally I find I get as many GGs with Charismatic leaders (thanks to the quicker promotions I presume) and the quicker promotions and boost to city happiness are bigger benefits than quicker settler production. Still I can see it might work well with an early rexing strategy especially combined with Creative or Organised.

Imperialistic trait isn't all that bad. You can get lot of Great Generals this way, which is nice (almost a free Theocracy/Vassalage!). There are many options: stagnating my early expansion (three cities or alike), build wonders, and then REX the rest of the land - it's so easy to catch-up with their settlers! Cheap settlers are good, because they are good and cheap. 100 hammers investment is big, so it's good to low it a bit.

Oh, and it is also a great trait in multiplayer, where expansion is a priority.

Protective, on the other hand... :crazyeye:

I'm not a big fan of Imperialistic. Generally I find I get as many GGs with Charismatic leaders (thanks to the quicker promotions I presume) and the quicker promotions and boost to city happiness are bigger benefits than quicker settler production. Still I can see it might work well with an early rexing strategy especially combined with Creative or Organised.

I also agree that the bonus of Charismatic is better, it's one of my favourites, but that trait is recognised by the public already. I'm not trying to say Imperialistic is the best trait here, that would be an overstatement. However it has its uses and I wanted to put attention to some of those uses and have more people recognise it as a playable trait. By switching the settler production on/off with chopping you'll only be halting growth about 2-3 turns early on for each settler with the added :hammers: overflow which is definitely something to appreciate. Being able to get to those sweet city spots faster and block off the AI is useful too. Creative would as you put out there also be a nice trait to use due to more effective cultural blocking and not having to get monuments.

Welcome to the forums jimjamss! :D

I also agree that the bonus of Charismatic is better, it's one of my favourites, but that trait is recognised by the public already. I'm not trying to say Imperialistic is the best trait here, that would be an overstatement. However it has its uses and I wanted to put attention to some of those uses and have more people recognise it as a playable trait. By switching the settler production on/off with chopping you'll only be halting growth about 2-3 turns early on for each settler with the added :hammers: overflow which is definitely something to appreciate. Being able to get to those sweet city spots faster and block off the AI is useful too. Creative would as you put out there also be a nice trait to use due to more effective cultural blocking and not having to get monuments.

Welcome to the forums jimjamss! :D

I agree that its playable. Although theres a lot of talk about top tier traits etc all of them seem to work with a bit of adaption of play to that traits strengths. 1 thing I haven't tried but seen mentioned is synergy between Imperialistic and the GWs bonus to GG generation on your own territory.

imerialistic isn't really a top tier trait, but it definitely has it's uses

I like protective, but I will say justinian has become one of my favorite leaders and builds a strong case for imperialistic for me.

Well, Imperialistic has its uses, but I fail to see its efficiency compared to Cha. I dare to say that Imperialistic is even weaker than Protective, 'cause the last one, properly leveraged can boost trade, espionage and ensure safety (supported by standard pack of axes in case of pillagers).

Settlers half price is nothing, only occasionally it can be useful when one has high hammer yield and races towards a good city spot. Around 1000BC this fun is over. So all You can get are great generals. But without solid economy war inevitably leads to sniffing other's trails. And it's hard to have good economy with big empire before BC.

Sorry, I'm not buying it. Charismatic is one of my favourites, and Protective in Sitting Bull is pure poetry. Imperialistic is crappy. Perhaps reduction in maintenance could bring the power to it, as it is - I'm not playing it. Played few times and really failed to see GG spam in action, had to use my other trait. Let's say that Vicky can do it with Financial, but that's it. Of course, If You play with Romans Your leaders can have no traits at all, You'll still be succesfull :/

Settlers aren't half price, you just get 1.5x hammers.

And if you chop at 95, the overflow gets scaled back down when applied to the next unit.

Sure, the fun might be over at 1000 BC, but once the snowball of land starts rolling it picks up along the way. The sooner you can gain an advantage over other civs the more you can benefit over time. And as to later use I'd check out an other thread in this forum, "rack 'em and pack 'em", or something along these lines for possible usage of the settler bonus into the later ADs. Don't you just hate it when you come 1-2 turns too late for the excellent city spot you planned on settling first? With an imperialistic leader using this start you can be there 6 or more turns earlier having pretty much the same amount of army.

There's also the added bonus of the GW that I forgot to mention in my opening post. Lure the enemy into your lands and finish them off there or let them attack your hill cities for absurd amounts of GG points.

Settlers aren't half price, you just get 1.5x hammers.

And if you chop at 95, the overflow gets scaled back down when applied to the next unit.

I did not know that. I guess I should've done some more research before posting and pay more attention. If what you say is true then the trait is less useful than what I made it out to be. It still has its uses though. Guess we'll be stuck chopping the settlers only.

another question could be - which trait does imperialistic work with the best?
Seems like Julius Ceasar (Imperialistic/Organized) would be strong in a round about way.

Rusten,

I regularly try Immortal maps and I can tell you Imperialistic is a great trait due to chopping giving 50% more hammers. The early advantage in Civ4 grows exponentially. On marathon speed with 2 chops, you get 180 and rest you can finish off in ((300-180=120 hammers)/(6*(1+0.5)))=14 turns. It takes 9 turns to chop anyway so it works out perfectly.

What makes those high difficulties hard is that you cannot expand as quickly as the AI. With imperialistic I can expand even faster than the AI assuming your 2nd city will also be forest rich.

Also, during ancient era, those forests have a high chance of regrowth =) I had 2 forests regrow in my capital once. =) I lost later, but oh well it was one of the nicest capitals ever.

Great generals are great too, because you will get plenty early on and you can settle them 1 per good production city allowing you get city raider II from the start.

Ok, for my HOF submission game on Immortal, I was using the Julius Ceaser. I think Imperialistic works best on overcrowded maps. On other maps, the early settler advantage is not so obvious.

Hello all, I have played all previous versions of Civ but have only just got Civ4, played it for the first time the other night. I have already made enquiries about the production / growth differential for settler production and the addition of civics and religion expansion. For the benefit of an absolute novice to Civ 4 could someone just explain very clearly what you mean by "chopping" with regards to settler production and can someone also explain what happen with cottages?

Hello all, I have played all previous versions of Civ but have only just got Civ4, played it for the first time the other night. I have already made enquiries about the production / growth differential for settler production and the addition of civics and religion expansion. For the benefit of an absolute novice to Civ 4 could someone just explain very clearly what you mean by "chopping" with regards to settler production and can someone also explain what happen with cottages?

With Bronze Working researched, you can clear the forests with your workers; workers chop the forests and the city closest gets hammers. With Imperialistic you get %50 more hammers per forest toward Settler production.

If food-converted-hammers applied to settlers I would like imperialistic more. It gets a bit of a bad rap, but at best it is only a mid-tier trait imo.

As I have said on these forums before, I like all the traits and play a mix of leaders, rarely replaying one that I won a game with.

I agree Imperialistic get's a bad rap. My view of it is similar to your's, abuse it to get alot of early settlers, I find working mines and otehr production sites work very nicely to rapidly claim good lands but will rarely use the chop unless there is one area I am in danger of losing. Imperialistic got a bump in BTS because of privateers. If you beeline atronomy and chemistry you can claim several GGs without ever going to war (Did this in my Victoria RPC). Another point on Imperialistic is defensive wars if you nail the Great Wall Wonder, as the GG points are multiplied, meaning 100% bonus and another 100% bonus on that (so 2 XP from a battle get's you 8 XPs towards a GG). It's a trait for rapid expansion and settling while increasing the production of GGs to maintain and expand that empire in a military fashion (hende why both Romans are Imperilistic).

I also agree with your comments on Ghengis Khan, he is the best equipped for War-mongering as he is agressive (free combat to melee and gunpowder). has a UB that helps mounted units, has a UU that is very mobile allowing conquest of more land quicker, and can rapidly produce GGs which can be settled for even more experienced new units. As you said, he start with good techs for expansion early.

Finally, I will say certain traits do not work well with Imperialistic producing a leader that is tough to play, at least in my experience

On the good side:

Agustus: IMP a big plus
Julius: A big plus
Suliman: A Very big plus
Victoria: A plus for the privateer aspect and getting good Redcoats
Ghengis kahn: See above
Justinian: UB/UU help alot as well as starting with Mysticism for an early religion. Target early Theocracy and alot of GGs.
Catherine: The creative trait with early settlers? Almost unfair early on, the AI I least like starting near.


One the weaker side

Charlemange: Man if it wasn't for his UB he would be the worse. Protective and Imperilistic with those starting techs are pretty week.

I am missing someone, just do not recall who.

Oh yeah, I am not a big fan of Joao. Expansive and a week UU/UB.

@madscientist

When you play one of your RPC or one of your offline all leaders marathon games ,you'll see that João ( like all leaders ) needs a tuned strategy..... basically chop settlers + chop workers + mass army growth ( unlike the João II AI does ;) ). The UU is meh ,but the UB is not....

@madscientist

When you play one of your RPC or one of your offline all leaders marathon games ,you'll see that João ( like all leaders ) needs a tuned strategy..... basically chop settlers + chop workers + mass army growth ( unlike the João II AI does ;) ). The UU is meh ,but the UB is not....

Gotcha! I'll remember that next time I try to play him.

Suliman: A Very big plus


Why do you consider suleiman a very big plus? Phi/Imp Janissary/Hammam; I don't know his starting techs.

I haven't played with this leader before but I don't see how you're putting him at the top of the stack for benefitting from the imperialistic trait. Just curious. thanks.

Why do you consider suleiman a very big plus? Phi/Imp Janissary/Hammam; I don't know his starting techs.

I haven't played with this leader before but I don't see how you're putting him at the top of the stack for benefitting from the imperialistic trait. Just curious. thanks.

My experience is that he can expand fairly quickly, while targeting the pyramids for a SE, not worrying much about the slider. The Jan's start with those benefits and a few settled GGs by that point can turn into a very stronge early gunpowder force. I know it may not seam like much but I was able to do very well with him using the early expansion.

If you are Imperialistic: when settled on a plains hill and being able to build a Settler in 15 or Worker in 12 turns... what do you build first? What do you build if you have Fishing and access to seafood?

If you do build a Settler before a worker... does this also apply to Joao?

I don't mind it, but it needs something else. Either some double speed buildings or something more creative. I heard someone suggest a golden age when your civ wipes out another, and that's very interesting. Perhaps extra happiness or something from vassals? I just think another plus to it would make it much more desirable.

As I said, it's awesome in multiplayer.

Suleiman is a good Imp leader. As Financial supports your economy, so can Philosophical, although it's trickier. And you can rely on spamming Great Merchants, cheaper in Philosophical.

And you can rex cheaper with it.

My experience is that he can expand fairly quickly, while targeting the pyramids for a SE, not worrying much about the slider. The Jan's start with those benefits and a few settled GGs by that point can turn into a very stronge early gunpowder force. I know it may not seam like much but I was able to do very well with him using the early expansion.

I can see that, unless you wind up warring with a protective leader. Trying to take cities with only janissaries against CG2 or CG3 longbows seems like an uphill battle. Seems to me, you'd want to beeline gunpowder using the Great People you generate to help get you there faster. But I doubt you could have engineering also in a timely manner (Great Engineer to bulb perhaps), and the trebs would be needed against protective longbows.

Anyway, that's an unlikely scenario so I can see where this has its strengths. Janissaries also have access to guerilla and woodsman promotions further enhancing their versatility.

Conceptually, it's just a little foreign to me because I typically go for more of a hybrid economy when playing imperialistic leaders (Victoria is the exception). I usually find I need cash to afford the REX. With Suleiman, it is probably conceivable to use merchants for cash and a shot at a Great Merchant. A trading caravan would solve the financial woes of expanding.

Overall, I like the imperialistic. It is not financial or philosophical which I consider to be the two most easy to abuse traits. The rest sit in the same barrel for me and I not dissuaded from any leader triat. I find them all useful, its usually just a matter of being willing to try something different.

They say that a picture can say more than a thousand words. Allow me to show an example of what I was saying in the opening post to those who might've misunderstood somehow. Just repeating that I do not think this is one of the absolute top traits either, but it's still good! It has a more passive effect, which means that you don't notice the benefit unless you put your mind to it.

Example below:

ETA 2 forest chop:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/uploads/123627/turn_360000.JPG

turn after - chopped:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/uploads/123627/turn_370000.JPG

turn after:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/uploads/123627/turn_380000.JPG

2nd chop:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/uploads/123627/turn_410000.JPG


This gives us a total of 88 (out of 100) hammers using only 2 turns of growth. Note that the settler only requires one more turn to be complete using normal production. I have made 2 archers (3rd one at 23/25) so far in the game and grown to 4 having my settler complete in about 40 turns and the next ones will be fast too. The result could've been even better if I had started with bronze or a hill without a forest on it (or plains cattle etc etc..). I just used what the map generator gave me at the first attempt. To compare it with a non-imperialistic leader I calculated that we would have 60/100 hammers with the same chops and we would need another 4 turns (without growth) to complete the settler and that just wouldn't be worth the two forests. There's a grassland river with cattle, bronze and gold to the south-east next to Charlemagne and I want to get there before he does. Remember that this is turn ~40. Those 28 hammers extra are huge and being able to get that super-city safely will benefit me for milleniums to come.

If you still think the trait is worthless or totally sucks then so be it. I've done my best to convince you and this thread wasn't for you in the first place. The goal was to make some people curious who have just heard that Imperialistic is bad and never got around to using it - there are ways! Also keep in mind that this start was far from ideal as I don't want 20 forests at all, but rather stuff to improve. You could get an even better earlier boost than what I've shown.

I am missing someone, just do not recall who.

How could you forget Cyrus? I'd figure he'd be the most obvious Imp leader.

I personally think Imp is an... ok trait... I try to leverage it like any other trait but still there are better traits out there to use then Imp.

A further tip would be to "pre-chop" your forests until they're timed at 1 while working on your workers/archers at size 5. That would allow you to pump out those settlers at a rate of only 1-2 turns for each.

I'm having a great game as Cathy currently. I started out by boxing in with a couple settlers then rushing the Arabs. After taking them out I gunned for col/currency. Once that was in place, I boxed in with a couple settlers then rushed the Mayans. After taking them out, I rexed the rest of my land. Ended up with about 20 cities pre-1500AD normal. Then I focused on my economy, liberalism, and gunning for cossacks. I just finished taking out the Greeks who had a huge empire. I'm sub 1800AD needing only a bit more land for a domination win. I'm currently sending out yet more settlers to claim the remaining islands while shipping my cossacks over to the weakest overseas opponent.

The GG bonus was kind of "meh" this game. I have an uber capital now (had a production capital) pumping out highly-promoted units, but the game is already in the bag.

Justinian proved really effective for me.
Spiritual is a good trait and Cataphracts are a decent UU (although the abundance of ivory on the map was annoying) but the best thing about him is his UB. I fought a lengthy war against the Germans thanks to understimating the amount of units I needed but the Hippodrome dealt with WW very effectively.

They say that a picture can say more than a thousand words. Allow me to show an example of what I was saying in the opening post to those who might've misunderstood somehow. Just repeating that I do not think this is one of the absolute top traits either, but it's still good! It has a more passive effect, which means that you don't notice the benefit unless you put your mind to it.

Example below:
[SPOILER]
ETA 2 forest chop:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/uploads/123627/turn_360000.JPG

turn after - chopped:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/uploads/123627/turn_370000.JPG

turn after:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/uploads/123627/turn_380000.JPG

2nd chop:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/uploads/123627/turn_410000.JPG



sorry. i'm aware, the thread and this post is old but i want to be sure about one thing. actually i didn't observe it myself and will try it at home.

well, not stopping city growth and turning to settler/worker production back again just when i see that my workers have 2 more turns to finish chopping is a method i also do sometimes. but when i need the settler/worker urgently sure, i will let the city stop growing.

this is a good method for sure. but by this way, you are skipping the 1.5hammers settler advantage of imp trait, are you not? or am i wrong? let me go into detail.

settler, marathon :300 hammers
let's say a non-imp leader with capital pop 1 builds the settler in 60 turns.
an imp leader will finish it in 40 turns with the same conditions. (number change acc to hammer/food variations)

that 1.5 hammers advantage should be only when you are doing the production right? i mean, the total hammers are still 300.
you told that imp gets +50% more hammers from chopping while building settler. is this true?
if this is true, you are right. but if it is still 60 (90 after math), then the ahmmer/settler advantage of imp goes away.
can you please clarify?
by the way, your attachments in this post are off.

The key to IMP is that you get strategic resources before your rivals.

my .02 - is good on deity; on immortal imho it's already meh. And only on some deity; on an isolated start it's again useless. I mean, on immortal, with experience(I still take it over deity, much more room for various approaches), you should reach what you want without much fuss.

regarding the above question - if at pop. 1 as non imperialistic you work a, dunno, 3 food non farmed corn; your produce towards the settler 3(corn) + 1(base city hammer) = 4/turn.

as imperialistic ideally you want a forested plain hill - at pop. 1, you produce towards the settler 3(hammer) + 1(base city hammer) = 4(hammer) * 1.5(imp.) = 6/turn

without a forested plain hill, at pop. 1 you'd work either a plain forest or a grassland forested hill and you'll produce 2(hammer) + 1(food) + 1(base city hammer) = 3(hammer) * 1.5(imp) + 1(food - no bonus) = 5.5/turn.

my .02 - is good on deity; on immortal imho it's already meh. And only on some deity; on an isolated start it's again useless. I mean, on immortal, with experience(I still take it over deity, much more room for various approaches), you should reach what you want without much fuss.

regarding the above question - if at pop. 1 as non imperialistic you work a, dunno, 3 food non farmed corn; your produce towards the settler 3(corn) + 1(base city hammer) = 4/turn.

as imperialistic ideally you want a forested plain hill - at pop. 1, you produce towards the settler 3(hammer) + 1(base city hammer) = 4(hammer) * 1.5(imp.) = 6/turn

without a forested plain hill, at pop. 1 you'd work either a plain forest or a grassland forested hill and you'll produce 2(hammer) + 1(food) + 1(base city hammer) = 3(hammer) * 1.5(imp) + 1(food - no bonus) = 5.5/turn.

there is a misunderstanding, i think. i didn't ask how many turns it will take, i asked if Rusten's good method was skipping the prod advantage of settler or not. that is also a method i apply.

METHOD: instead of stopping growth while building settlers/workers, you train a unit for example and let the city continue growing. you just wait until you see you workers have 2 more turn to finish chopping, that turn you change back to settler/worker so when you hit enter, 60 more hammers are there. That means you are adding that 60 hammers to settlert/worker production without building it any turn. then you continue tarining unit, and let the city continue growing. with this method you can build a settler by pure-chopping and only stopping growth for 300/60)=5 turns and the settler will be ready in 9*5=45 turns. My calculations are for marathon before math

now, this is a strange but good method. you can apply this method by half chopping and half manual- building. so you start with training a unit until city gets to 2 and then continue with finishing the settler and chop at the same time. then continue with the unit again etc.

but my argument is that, with this method, you will not be using the hammer adv of imp trait. or am i wrong?
Rusten told that, after chopping you get 90 hammers instead of 60 with an IMP leader but I doubt about that. What's the reality? we all know numner of hammers for settler produ is still 300 hammers and surplus food is not multiplied by 1.5

Most traits are on pretty equal footing in my Opinion. Its all about civ synergy. How well can you leverage those traits to be productive, powerful force with the uniqueness of your civ and the strategy your going to employ.

let's compare to philosophical. With Phil trait you get 100% bonus to GPP but that only really gets you 50% in your NE city and as little as 33% with pacifism (add parth and its now a whopping 28.6%). And these are points NOT GP which means your probably only getting like 15% more GP (though you do pop 1 or 2 really early ones due to lack of NE etc and low cost).

With the 100% Imperialistic you can pop 75% or so more Generals (increasing costs again). And if you think a plethora of generals aren't useful for when you have your UU or are building military momentum on your continent then you just can't use them well.

You can settle them and produce really high xp units, found an academy and have an early weapons factory (with higher xp). You can also get a super medic with as much as
40% a turn heal.

You can even go a fun route for my part. This worked better in 3.15 before the combat line was taken from artillery (why?). You can make a blitzkreiging superstack of doom. Get a warlord medic, some artillery and several warlord heavy infantry. Give em leadership, March(very importante), CRIII, Combat VI, Guerilla 3, woodsman III and tactics and watever else (antiarchery on one usually helps). Your stack can take cities continuously without casulties. This way you can farm 200+ xp invincible units for late game wars. How do you avoid losing them? keep the stack supplied with artillery and suicide troops in the event of difficult cities. SOften the defenses and mop up. I know not the best strat, but the most fun.

Noone's mentioned what I do in every IMP thread. You can 2 pop whip a settler after a turn of production.

Rusten - your screenshots are missing from your example, at least I can't see them.

What do you think about whipping the capital's worker and applying the overflow to a settler? If timed correctly you can whip the worker at 29/60 (2 pop whip from a size 4 capital), and get 30+ hammers of overflow. Build a settler next turn and they become 45 hammers. Switch to army on the following turn, and complete the queued settler with chopping.
I think this is useful on starts with a lot of great food tiles and not a lot of production.
When I start with fresh water corn and pigs I would improve those tiles before any mine, but with IMP I don't get the bonus for these tiles unless whipping.

Noone's mentioned what I do in every IMP thread. You can 2 pop whip a settler after a turn of production.

well, this is the same case about my question to Rusten, but he now seems away.

he tells that chopping brings more for an IMP leader than any otehr while building settler.

and you also tell that cheap settlers with IMP will cost less pop while whipping. i don't know much about whipping mechanics.

i didn't notice about the analysis of whipping and chopping but most guys talk as if an organzied leader will need less pop to whip for a courthouse, similar situtation.

so is that, double/50% advantage while building effect whipping/chopping as well. i assume, you say yes.

when i mosueover to hammer numbers, i see 4*1.5=6, so 50turns instead of 75 for example. and i thought that difference only counts for the turns you are building the settler unit. but i didn't notice if chopping will bring me 60 hammers or 90.

Chopping or whipping will give you (epic speed) 45 hammers (after maths).

Since ALL hammers are multiplied by the bonuses, chopping 1 forest into a couthouse will give you 90 hammers.

Whipping 2 pop after a single turn of production into a courthouse will give you 180 hammers, exactly enough to complete the courthouse.

So chopping will give you 45x1.5 = 62 hammers towards a settler.Epic speed sucks like that.

Noone's mentioned what I do in every IMP thread. You can 2 pop whip a settler after a turn of production.

Because you really don't want to whip before you get a granary. That said i am starting to become a huge fan of imperialistic. The snowball bonus is rather huge. No trait is better if you have a huge landmass to expand on and you are able to work alot of mines.

Chopping or whipping will give you (epic speed) 45 hammers (after maths).

Since ALL hammers are multiplied by the bonuses, chopping 1 forest into a couthouse will give you 90 hammers.

Whipping 2 pop after a single turn of production into a courthouse will give you 180 hammers, exactly enough to complete the courthouse.

So chopping will give you 45x1.5 = 62 hammers towards a settler.Epic speed sucks like that.

ok. thanks. it's clear now.
so the method of building settler without stopping growth works OVER-perfectly with IMP trait.

so this is perfect for an early REXing. you just get the resources you need and go ahead. i generally go settle near a resource very early even if it is far away than my capital.
so with those resources, i can wonder-spam in the capital and train units/settlers/workers in the other cities at the same time.

i believe, imperialistic is not a weak trait. like many friends said, the importance is whether the player can create a sinergy with the UB&traits or not.this is common for most traits.

For ex: financial is a very good trait especially for beginners. philosophical is also a very powerful trait under experienced hands. well, one favour CE and the other favour SE. and i believe, both have sinergy with different civics.

in the first glance, philosophical seems better than imperialistic but if you would play a pure cottage economy and not a hybrid CE/SE economy with England, it would be nonsense to select Elizabeth instead of Victoria.

Rusten - your screenshots are missing from your example, at least I can't see them.

What do you think about whipping the capital's worker and applying the overflow to a settler? If timed correctly you can whip the worker at 29/60 (2 pop whip from a size 4 capital), and get 30+ hammers of overflow. Build a settler next turn and they become 45 hammers. Switch to army on the following turn, and complete the queued settler with chopping.
I think this is useful on starts with a lot of great food tiles and not a lot of production.
When I start with fresh water corn and pigs I would improve those tiles before any mine, but with IMP I don't get the bonus for these tiles unless whipping.
Screenshots are missing because this thread (like many others) was made before the database went down earlier this year and there was no back-up.

And yes, I agree that with food-heavy starts you'll need to find some way to whip them, preferrably with workers. It's a very situational thing, but imperialistic can be leveraged very well with a starting position with a lot of commerce and production. If there's a lot of food then you could do well without it as well. Starting on a river with gold and forests available would be a very good situation--you can afford to churn out cities on all the good spots.

@madscientist

When you play one of your RPC or one of your offline all leaders marathon games ,you'll see that João ( like all leaders ) needs a tuned strategy..... basically chop settlers + chop workers + mass army growth ( unlike the João II AI does ;) ). The UU is meh ,but the UB is not....

His UU is the best in the game on the right maps.

On continents and New World, he's the only leader who can send troops (and settlers) overseas at Optics. Everyone else has to wait for Astronomy. Sure, he can't have trade routes with those cities and that makes the maintenance and happy/health difficult, but being able to get a 50+ turn jump on your neighbors in the race for the new world is a great asset.

Because you really don't want to whip before you get a granary. That said i am starting to become a huge fan of imperialistic. The snowball bonus is rather huge. No trait is better if you have a huge landmass to expand on and you are able to work alot of mines.

I like whipping after I have a Granary better than I like whipping before Granary, but whipping a Settler with 2 population is absolutely killer. It means you get to actually claim those nice spots on a crowded map and it means you only have to grow your capital to size 4 instead of waiting until size 6. Since my capital often has 2 food resources and 2 other tiles that are really worth working, growing to size 4 is pretty easy while growing to size 6 is often a much bigger hurdle to jump.

Also, if you build the Great Wall, all of your XP earned in your borders and at sea (don't know why it happens at sea, but it does) is multiplied by 4 for counting as Great General points. That's a nice little trick and it's not impossible to chop out the Great Wall when your early settlers can be whipped for 2 pop instead of 3 like everyone else's.

Imperialistic is a top tier trait (along with Philosophical, Industrious, Financial and Spiritual). It's better than Creative, and much, much better than Charismatic.

Leverage with constant war, get out those Great Generals.

It's the best top tier trait to complement the other top tier traits (with the exception of Industrious).

Suleiman, Victoria and Justinian are top tier leaders, and Imperialistic even makes Julius, Joao, Genghis and Charlemagne playable leaders. And of course

Augustus is a powerhouse although admittedly that's from Industrious more than Imperialistic.

Compare Victoria to Elizabeth; Vicky beats Liz hands down because Imperialistic synergizes with FIN while PHI has no synergy at all.

Cheers,

Dai

It's a good trait, but MUCH MUCH better than CHA?

I dunno...+2 free :) early on is a pretty big deal...IMO. The promos ain't bad either.

It's a good trait, but MUCH MUCH better than CHA?

I dunno...+2 free :) early on is a pretty big deal...IMO. The promos ain't bad either.

I agree with this whole heartedly. In regards to discussions about vertical vs. horizontal expansion, charismatic allows both by incentivizing a really cheap culture producing building and also expanding the happy caps +2. Early on the cap that limits your growth is happiness given that Fur, Gold, Silver, Ivory, Gems are the happy inducing early game resources. If a neighbor has stonehenge they easily become the first target and all their cities you conquer up until astronomy will get a monument.

The culture production allows you expand outwards while the raised cap allows you to expand upward. The bonus to experience allows better and more conquest from the start.

Imperialistic on the other hand allows horizontal expansion and better soldiers after at least 1 conquest.

Charisma, for me, is one of the best if not THE best trait in the game.

I like Imperialistic -- I just wish I could expand as fast as the Imperialistic AIs do!

Cathy is probably the best of the Imperialistic group from a REX perspective. Nobody can get out settlers and block out land like her. And she starts with Hunting / scouts too, so she can find the AIs and all the good spots quicker. And then Creative's cheap libaries kick in so she can SE herself out of her financial hellhole. Good times.

Militarily, Cyrus is incredible. Numerous settled GGs stacking with Charismatic's low-xp thresholds? WOW. By mid-game your military production city could easily be pumping out level 5 units from scratch (that's 13 xp -- barracks, vassalage, theocracy, three settled GGs). Four promotions to sling around on every unit! Just think what that could do for siege weapons alone! Cyrus does need some economic help, though -- although Charismatic's +2 happiness helps with vertical growth to work a few extra tiles or specialists.

And then there's Charlemagne -- once he settles, he's very hard to dislodge with his protective archers and gunpowder units and cheap walls.

I like Imperialistic -- I just wish I could expand as fast as the Imperialistic AIs do!

Cathy is probably the best of the Imperialistic group from a REX perspective. Nobody can get out settlers and block out land like her. And she starts with Hunting / scouts too, so she can find the AIs and all the good spots quicker. And then Creative's cheap libaries kick in so she can SE herself out of her financial hellhole. Good times.

Militarily, Cyrus is incredible. Numerous settled GGs stacking with Charismatic's low-xp thresholds? WOW. By mid-game your military production city could easily be pumping out level 5 units from scratch (that's 13 xp -- barracks, vassalage, theocracy, three settled GGs). Four promotions to sling around on every unit! Just think what that could do for siege weapons alone! Cyrus does need some economic help, though -- although Charismatic's +2 happiness helps with vertical growth to work a few extra tiles or specialists.

And then there's Charlemagne -- once he settles, he's very hard to dislodge with his protective archers and gunpowder units and cheap walls.

Cyrus is an absolute beast. Once you start taking over enemy capitals with settled GGs, the game progresses quickly into a giant continent land grab. In my current game I grabbed 3 Capitals for a combine 7 GGs, 2-3-2. Of those only one capital really presents itself as a production powerhouse (it has HE) besides my own capital. I have two unsettled GGs that Im waiting to use for acadmies in said captured capital and my own, and possibly will rack up a few more to use in those other cities. I'll most likely put Iron Works in the HE city and WP in my capital for level 6 ships...

I'll do the math later, but 2 pop whips without a granary are far less efficient than just utilizing the food bonus. And getting a granary means you're behind 60 (or 90 settler) hammers. So a 2 pop whip is ok if you need to rush a settler to beat out an AI, otherwise it's questionable.

Imperialistic whipping math: size 2 to size 4 is 24+26=50 food, and you get 60*1.5=90 hammers. You lose the settler production from your size 4 * the number of turns it takes to grow back to size 4. Assuming 2 food sources (say 6 and 4) and a plethora of hills and a grassland tile, it takes 50/8=6.25 turns to grow from size 2 to size 4. At size 4, you can work your size 6 food source and run 1 grassland mine, 2 plains mines, and get 1.5*(4*2+3+1)+1=19 hammers for settlers. You lose 19*6.25=118.75 hammers. So you're down about 30 hammers, with imperialistic. You could grow him to size 5.

Of course, if you get your settler 5 turns early, you're getting 5 turns of extra city production and you get about 6 hammers of archer production.

I'll do the math later, but 2 pop whips without a granary are far less efficient than just utilizing the food bonus. And getting a granary means you're behind 60 (or 90 settler) hammers. So a 2 pop whip is ok if you need to rush a settler to beat out an AI, otherwise it's questionable.

Imperialistic whipping math: size 2 to size 4 is 24+26=50 food, and you get 60*1.5=90 hammers. You lose the settler production from your size 4 * the number of turns it takes to grow back to size 4. Assuming 2 food sources (say 6 and 4) and a plethora of hills and a grassland tile, it takes 50/8=6.25 turns to grow from size 2 to size 4. At size 4, you can work your size 6 food source and run 1 grassland mine, 2 plains mines, and get 1.5*(4*2+3+1)+1=19 hammers for settlers. You lose 19*6.25=118.75 hammers. So you're down about 30 hammers, with imperialistic. You could grow him to size 5.

Of course, if you get your settler 5 turns early, you're getting 5 turns of extra city production and you get about 6 hammers of archer production.

i assume your calculations are for marathon scale. and this is the efficiency case when you don't have a granary then, right?

and how would the efficiency of whipping woudl change if you were Joao?

No this is normal speed without a granary. It should scale with small variations. It's just that a size 4 city can produce settlers pretty.

With a granary, you only have to generate 12+13=25 food, so with the same +8 food, that's 3.25 turns, at a loss of 19*3.25=61.75 hammers, so you're up about 30 hammers settler boosted hammers, 20 normal hammers. So with joao, if you get a granary first then get a settler, you're down 10 normal hammers, but you improve after that.

No this is normal speed without a granary. It should scale with small variations. It's just that a size 4 city can produce settlers pretty.

With a granary, you only have to generate 12+13=25 food, so with the same +8 food, that's 3.25 turns, at a loss of 19*3.25=61.75 hammers, so you're up about 30 hammers settler boosted hammers, 20 normal hammers. So with joao, if you get a granary first then get a settler, you're down 10 normal hammers, but you improve after that.

yes, thanks.

shortly, whatever method you use, whipping,chopping, first worker or first settler, you have a big advantage with IMP trait in pangaea/terra maps.
i mean maps with massive continents. and in isolated starts, imperialistic is very less useful, i agree.

if you will play in snaky continents, IMP trait seems to be less required. in snaky maps, early-founding just 1 border city may be enough to block AI passage to the land you want to settle on later. but in a pangaea map, you have to settle 5-10 cities in a circle so as to leave territory for you to settle on later.

yesterday with Victoria, marathon, monarch, large/shuffle map (i think it is pangaea), my score is nearly a double of the 2nd AI after me. and i have a clean tech lead.

i first fastly founded nearly7 cities like a large circle along my south/west/east borders, my north was ocean. and later started to fill in cities inside the circle.
now up to 500 or 1000bc, i have 9 cities with 12% land of the world. the second guy with largest territory is Joao with 7% land of the world.

i don't know, if the map is terra (i don't remember the map picture much now), 12% is even a bigger amount for 8 rivals. i think i will go up to 20% with the land i will settle later. without IMP trait i wouldn't be able to do that. and besides i have build 4 wonders in the capital on the other hand up to now. this is a good expanding. i got half of all types of resources very early this way. with the area inside my circle that i will settle later on, 3/4 types of resources are there as well.
i know this is an extra fast expanding which harms the economy and yes i just stopped researching with 0% science slider. but i have many workers to build cottages and i am building courthouses in most cities now. i think in a 20-30 turns, after most courthouses are done, i will continue researching and will start building my army. and maybe 50 turns later, i will continue expanding again.

Imperialistic is my favortie military trait because it's versatile. The snowball effect is clearly there and popping lvl 5 units without any civics related to XP is simply great for warmongering. Hardened fresh troops every 1 or 2 turns...

Ships starting with blitz... mmh

Drill IV artillery anyone?

I'll take some of that alongside my city raider lvl3 + barrage lvl X :D

I normally build a settler straight off the bat. Come 3300bc i have a second city.

My only issue is that by 7th city and heavily rexxing your economy is crippled. Still he does rexx really fast and the pyramid or a wonder is more than possible as less chops are needed on worker/ settlers.

I normally build a settler straight off the bat. Come 3300bc i have a second city.

My only issue is that by 7th city and heavily rexxing your economy is crippled. Still he does rexx really fast and the pyramid or a wonder is more than possible as less chops are needed on worker/ settlers.

well. it depends on difficulty and map size, you know. Having a large but also good protected territory generally results with a solid victory but in the beginning for a few centuries you have tax/science problems. But when you are strong again with your economy once again, you will not regret that much REXxing.

in my current game with Victoria, pangaea map (from shuffle), monarch diff, standart rules and #AI’s, large map; I have the largest territory and I also have 2 vassals. The tech leader and one of the strongest military in 1700s. In fact, I’ve started to increase mil strength and will be the 1st soon.

I had some maintenance/wealth problems during 1000BC. Still, I accepted Caesar’s call to fight along with him towards France. 2 more AI’s accepted Caesar’s call but practically only I fighted :) As a result, I captured Orleans and Rheims. And then forced De Gaulle for a peace.

Together with 2 captured cities I had 13 cities at that time. This is a very big number for between 1000BC-1AD and large map (not huge), monarch diff. I stopped researching for 60/70turns! I was still loosing 10 gpt with 100% wealth tax. But I didn’t care about it even a little. I had a few hundred golds saved from city capturing and I also took gold & tech tribute from a few AI’s.

I was ahead in tech before 1000BC, but later a few AI’s catched me but still I didn’t care. I passed all of them in tech again a few centuries later. So if you don’t get too much behind in tech and military, as a result large territory brings a huge benefit but just be patience.


Do you wonder what happened to France? France was the 2nd power after me before 1000BC and they moved to mid scores after the war in 1000BC. They never had the courage to fight me again until 1450 AD. They attacked me and I captured Lyons and Paris and finally capitalized him. He is the lowest one in score now.

When you play one of your RPC or one of your offline all leaders marathon games ,you'll see that João ( like all leaders ) needs a tuned strategy..... basically chop settlers + chop workers + mass army growth ( unlike the João II AI does ). The UU is meh ,but the UB is not....

hafta disagree there man... The carrack in my opinion is one of the best uus out there

Imperialistic is pretty good, but top tier? That is...a stretch imo.

Imperialistic is nice, because quick settlers are way nice, and great generals are nice, though I typically lead units (GG'd siege are sick) rather than for the xp.

I don't like Charismatic because I think aggressive is better if you're looking for promotions, and the happiness is useful at the beginning, but after hereditary rule is pretty much unimportant.

I find that with Genghis (Agg/Imp) I can create huge empires way way to easily, and actually have to get an earlier pottery than usual to keep up with the maintenance and actually be able to get to currency/CoL.

Also, it's hard to deny Victoria (Fin/Imp) her power to set up and maintain a huge empire.

I also like Catherine with Creative to forego those damned monuments.

I also like Catherine with Creative to forego those damned monuments.

She is the ultimate REX civ.

Imperialistic is definitely a top tier trait imo. If you want to REX, there's no better trait for the job. If you want to war, it's the best for that too. When warring with Imp, it's better to pick on a weaker civ 1st to pop a couple quick GGs. Then your armies will be ready for anyone and training veterans too. Imperialistic goes good with any trait and makes for a strong leader.

Imperialistic is pretty good, but top tier? That is...a stretch imo.

Well it is certanly better than org which you say is so good for example... And it is better for rexing than expansive...

Well it is certanly better than org which you say is so good for example... And it is better for rexing than expansive...

org and imp are traits with different extras. you cannot compare them.
you can compare protective/aggressive, imp/char, fin/phil, ind/phil, fin/org... all have some similarities. but org and imp... they are so different and togetehr they may create a huge sinergy.

for ex: org/imp Julius Caesar would be overpowered if he ruled Holy Roman Empire. cheap settler, cheap rathaus ;) rex like rabbits...

or Genghis Khan with zulus :)

Julius ceasar is overpowered ruling the romans! The most powerfull civ in the game.. Against the AI at least... I don't see how char compares to imp at all.. IMP get cheaper settlers and char get cheaper promotions? Organized get cheap courthouses and lighthouses and factories which can easily be compared against cheap settlers, and for the most crucial part of the game having cheap settlers is way better than having buildings you can't even build(and you certanly can't build buildings without cities). If it wasn't for the overpowered immortals(against AI anyways) viccy might very well be better than darius most of the time...

Charismatic makes nice synergy with imperialistic and lots of warring....that's all....overall of course imperialistic is better.....

i've sent 2 posts by mistake, so i'm deleting the 1st

Charismatic makes nice synergy with imperialistic and lots of warring....that's all....overall of course imperialistic is better.....

i agree. imperialistic trait is really nice. when compared alone, i like imp more than most traits. but still i would be very happy if boosts like the following were implemented

* vassals: apostolic palace receives +1 more great people birth rate (great prophet) for each vassal.
west point gives +1 more great people birth rate (great spy) for each vassal.
versailles gives +1 more great people birth rate (great merchant) for each vassal.

some guys say that free espionage points would be good for imperialistic trait but IMO advantages like the above would be much better as it is not a direct extra and requires some notice, especially encouraging war. (you could found colonies as well)

all 3 together might be overpowered so maybe only 1 or 2 of them could also be enough

I have been playing a game as Justinian I on the Earth 1000AD map (I think its the one that came with BTS, not the one of these forums) and earlier played as Julius on the 18civs map. Obviously these are war-heavy maps (especially for the Romans 18 civs) and I have to say that I am very much liking the Imp trait on these. Every other major battle can generate a GG, and especially on 18 civs as JC, the early generals for conquering Europe get settled in Rome making the Asia Minor and Russian fronts even that much easier.

For Justinian, I haven't really found a good production site early on in the 1000 AD game. Athens or Constantinople are decent choices for Moai (as is Rome if you can :backstab: Charlie) but a generals are quick to appear with all the crusading going on.

hey there IMP fans!
i've compiled an excel sheet to have an XP guide, so as to know how many GGs i need to settle for spamming levels of units i would like.
it's attached, if you would need it like me.

NOTEs: the calculations are for simple land units, for air units it would also be the same.
for naval, mounted units it would be a little different (1/2 XP)
UU&UB effects are excluded

She is the ultimate REX civ.

:agree: My current Noble's Club Catherine game was a walk in the park (against Shaka and Ragnar to boot). Her 2 big traits ;) are very synergistic. Imperialistic for a great early rex and lots of GGs. Creative for quick border pops and cheap libraries to keep your tech rate up in spite of the rex. Both traits also have great synergy with the Great Wall - it's easy to enclose 3 or 4 cities for early barb protection, and it gives a huge boost to GG production for the inevitable early warring. If you can grab stone early so that you can build the mids and HG in your capital, you will likely get a couple of GEs. I used these to rush wonders in cities bordering my intended victims, which pushed my borders to within 1 tile of their cities. This makes your first invasions very easy.

:agree: My current Noble's Club Catherine game was a walk in the park (against Shaka and Ragnar to boot). Her 2 big traits ;) are very synergistic. Imperialistic for a great early rex and lots of GGs. Creative for quick border pops and cheap libraries to keep your tech rate up in spite of the rex. Both traits also have great synergy with the Great Wall - it's easy to enclose 3 or 4 cities for early barb protection, and it gives a huge boost to GG production for the inevitable early warring. If you can grab stone early so that you can build the mids and HG in your capital, you will likely get a couple of GEs. I used these to rush wonders in cities bordering my intended victims, which pushed my borders to within 1 tile of their cities. This makes your first invasions very easy.

The map you played was a major reason it was so easy. it was origionally a map for mansa Musa. I played it both ways. The Ai is fare enough away I managed to plant the three cities needed to seal the northern half of my continent with mansa as well.
My problem with Imp, is that it becomes pretty weak if you are not close to the Ai. On isolated starts or when you have rushed your only neighbor, imp becomes fairly useless. And once all the available land is taken. Settler bonuses are useless.

org and imp are traits with different extras. you cannot compare them.

Well, then you can't compare any traits at all. Thus all tiers are meaningless and all the leaders are equal by default as each trait has the same value. All because they cannot be compared.

My problem with Imp, is that it becomes pretty weak if you are not close to the Ai. On isolated starts or when you have rushed your only neighbor, imp becomes fairly useless. And once all the available land is taken. Settler bonuses are useless.
this seems true at the first glance but in fact it isn't. taking all the available land is not always easy in high levels especially. and if yoy took all the avaikable land, then you already finished the game. the rest is baby toy.

i mean, unless you decrease the standart number of AIs, you will always have a few neighbours even in continents map.
if you can early rush neighbours and become isolated in 1 of 2/3 continents in the world, then this is a success and you already nearly won the game. so you will have a few GG in early era and after optic, you can make war and continue having GGs as well.

so IMP trait works very well for all map types except "custom continents + 1 cont per each team" which is a total isolation. so useful for 90/95% of all map types.
by the way, if you think that way some more traits also become weaker in total isolated starts as well. charismatic, aggressive, protective are nearly useless whereas creative (nearly no need to quick border pop) and even spiritual become a little bit weaker. if you will not be able to spread your religion to an AI, then shrine will bring less profit until optics/astronomy. so well, spiritual is nerfed for iso starts as well.
you can argue that you will benefit those traits in late game but the destiny of the game will already be written until that time. you will fail unless you have a very good late era UU or UB (like mall, research institute, panzer, marine etc.)


Well, then you can't compare any traits at all. Thus all tiers are meaningless and all the leaders are equal by default as each trait has the same value. All because they cannot be compared.
with that way of thinking, sure everything can be compared.
but traits with similar uses are more sensible to be compared right?
can you compare bethoven with megadeth? Maybe you can, in some way
and can you compare metallica with megadeth? Sure, you can

for ex; economic similarity/diversity between org/fin/phi
promotion similarity between agg, pro, cha, and imp
REX similarity betw CRE & IMP etc etc...
infrastructure similarity between EXP/ORG

yes, maybe you can compare all traits by cheap buildings of them but generally this is the secondary advantage of many traits. Let’s say ORG trait, it’s firstly considered as a trait for large and high-pop empires, so 50% civics is the main advantage. Cheap buildings are secondary.

It's painful to see people comparing IMP and CHA without taking into account CHA's :) cap bonus in the early goings. CHA is a really solid trait, top tier IMO. It's like having a free wonder earlygame and then on top of that some military bonus power.

IMP IMO shines better in tight corners, at high difficulties, Or games where you have an overpowering force and can make use of some extra super units (Super March units anyone?!). The cheap settler is far from useless but again I don't think you can say IMP is better for REX than EXP outright. Seriously...what good are settlers if you aren't getting workers? Do you plan to steal these workers? I guess that would bait the AI into your territory for some GG's. Coupled with the extra cheap granary (one building you'll have in EVERY SINGLE CITY, incidentally) EXP IMO is on par with IMP for rex most of the time.

It's painful to see people comparing IMP and CHA without taking into account CHA's :) cap bonus in the early goings. CHA is a really solid trait, top tier IMO. It's like having a free wonder earlygame and then on top of that some military bonus power.

IMP IMO shines better in tight corners, at high difficulties, Or games where you have an overpowering force and can make use of some extra super units (Super March units anyone?!). The cheap settler is far from useless but again I don't think you can say IMP is better for REX than EXP outright. Seriously...what good are settlers if you aren't getting workers? Do you plan to steal these workers? I guess that would bait the AI into your territory for some GG's. Coupled with the extra cheap granary (one building you'll have in EVERY SINGLE CITY, incidentally) EXP IMO is on par with IMP for rex most of the time.
i agree EXP is a good trait for REXing as well. Joao is one of the leaders AI plays best, that is a proof. I generally compare leaders instead of comparing traits, bec a trait which would not be so great become stronger with synergy of UU/UB or the other trait. But still traits alone can also be compared.

About your exp/imp comparison: People think different about when the 1 st settler should be build. Some wait until 3, some wait until capital reach happy cap, some build settler as 1st and some build worker then settler.

If you prefer a method for building the settler after capital reaches pop 3/4, then +50% hammers for settler prod become rather useless as you will be mostly working farms, pastures more than mines.

If you would be a wonder-spammer, expanding would be a problem. So id you woould buld 1 settler before starting building wonders, then quick settlers save time a lot so as not to miss the wonder. Remember, you always need at least 1 worker as well before building wonders.
If only you would build the great wall, still i would advice building 1worker, 1 settler before TGW.

If you would build 1 worker then 1 settler or if the 1st thing you would build is the settler, then IMP shines especially on top of a plains/hill. Well, hills are always good for city placement by the way. I especially love plains/hill on riverside.
+25 defense
+defense from other riverside
+hills defense for archer
+guerilla promotion together with city garrison archers would be unbeatable

and the river also gives +health and levee permission.

well plains hill works very good with EXP anyway. You would build workers in 20 turns instead of 30 (marathon)

Well, I played Cyrus on Earth scenario once. Settled on a plains/hill and i had deer on a forest in 8 tiles of Persepolis. Wov! It gave me 2food+2hammers even before camp. Hell! I started with building the settler in 38 turns in marathon. That's the fastest possible without any improvement in pop1.

One more thing! IMP allows you to work the gold mine directly in pop1. Just start with worker and research mining if required then build a settler. You would build the settler very fast+very fast teching. I'm sure most persons who builds the settler after pop3/4 wouldn't work the gold mine until capital pop is 2 or 3. with IMP, you can work it.

by the way, i build granaries very late. because
*i generally don't even adopt slavery
*i'm generally busy with REXing and training units in early game. in some cases, i build granaries even after libraries :D
well, if the city is growing very fast, then you will complete the granary after the city reaches happy cap. so granary doesn't look so urgent without whipping.
in old civ series, granary was always my 1st building, but in BTS it generally comes late. i don't start building cottages very early neither even when I select a FIN leader. So pottery, i research rather late unless I were Huayna capac :)

It's painful to see people comparing IMP and CHA without taking into account CHA's :) cap bonus in the early goings. CHA is a really solid trait, top tier IMO. It's like having a free wonder earlygame and then on top of that some military bonus power.

Oh, such a long post I did again, I even forgot about your IMP/CHA comparison. Well, both are very powerful traits.
IMP without great wall would be useless. But assuming you would build TGW for both traits, still i like IMP more.
Anyway, Cyrus is great, isn't he?

But before comparing 2 traits, I still would ask you what the 2nd trait and UU/UB would be, then answer.

So comparing like the below is more correct
* Suleiman/Lincoln: Similar strength but Suleiman weighs more for me
* Victoria/Hannibal: Both are monsters but still Victoria, I like more.
* Augustus/De Gaulle: Well, Augustus without doubt. France UB is bad. I don't like great artists. Artist is a pollution in GP points. I have 1/2 of them in every game and don't want more
* Julius/Napoleon: Both are monsters but again France UB is bad.
* Genghis/Boudica: Hard to answer really. Both are born warmongers.But Boudica seems better, I think.
* Joao/Washington: Joao with no doubt. UB&UU is super. Joao is a monster especially for Terra maps.
* Justinian/Brennus: Justinian weighes heavier for me. Hippodrome is the keyword. Justinian can resist any WW.
* Charlemagne/Churchill: Well, like many warmongers I don't like prot trait so much. But Charlemagne is an exception because Rathaus is the 2nd UB in the game. Ikhanda is the 1st. But I don't like Shaka's trait combination. Landsknecht is a nightmare by the way. Consisting army of only landsknecht instead of pike+mace is easier. Similar strength with immortals.
* Cre/Cha doesn't exist. 'Cre/Imp' Cathy is good

I accept +2 happy in early game is shining but after looking at my above comments, it seems I like IMP generally more as a result.

@ camarilla: I agree it is a very decent trait, but it seems you aren't even leveraging IMP to its fulles...

Slavery is something that makes Imperialistic shine. 1:food: is generally worth more than 1:hammers: and therefore Worker and Settlers are the best candidates for the whip anyway.
Gaining a bonus on the hammer part of their production (but not the food part) makes Slavery a natural choice.

***

I consider IMP a very useful support trait. It's a head start similarl to EXP. It allows one to follow a production-hungry strategy without neglecting expansion (Augustus: whip settler, overflow into wonder).

It also helps salvage otherwise extremely poor starts. If no immediately useful resource is at hand and you can get to 4 base hammers, settler first become a viable alternative. Heavily forested starts without resources normally suck, but they allow extremely quick expansion for IMP leaders (early additional hammers injected from chopping being better for them, same argument as for the whip).

@ camarilla: I agree it is a very decent trait, but it seems you aren't even leveraging IMP to its fulles...

Slavery is something that makes Imperialistic shine. 1:food: is generally worth more than 1:hammers: and therefore Worker and Settlers are the best candidates for the whip anyway.
Gaining a bonus on the hammer part of their production (but not the food part) makes Slavery a natural choice.


I'm aware whipping is practical with IMP. but it differs with which leader I would play.
Hmm, if I were a mid-age rusher like Charlemagne or Caesar's, i think whipping in early game would help much. But still, I don't do much.

If I were an early rusher like Cyrus or Darius, I'm very busy with training Immortals. After a whip, the city would slow down in immortal training dramatically. Very bad! Still whipping might be used in secondary cities maybe, I don't know. And after early rush period ends during 1000BC/1AD generally caste system I prefer.
In some games, I select Code of Laws with Oracle (and sometimes I pick metal casting, it differs) and if I do like that I really can't find any time for whipping. Caste system comes very early. And togetehr with mids&repr,caste system is overpowered.

And if I decide to play a WE game with an IMP leader, then I would never ever whip in the capital.

Imperialistic is obviously good : Julius Caesar is ! He and his praetorians are so great !

\bye

The Ai is fare enough away I managed to plant the three cities needed to seal the northern half of my continent with mansa as well.

My problem with Imp, is that it becomes pretty weak if you are not close to the Ai.

So what are you saying here? If they're far away it's good, and if they're not close it's bad? :crazyeye:

On isolated starts or when you have rushed your only neighbor, imp becomes fairly useless. And once all the available land is taken. Settler bonuses are useless.

Games are often won in the early game by your ability to block off land from the AI. That, to me, is a huge advantage.

The GG bonus lasts the entire game. So once the inevitable wars begin after your rex, imp still gives you a major benefit.

Isolated starts are fairly rare, and imp is not the only trait that is weaker in isolation. :p Agg, cha, prot (useless everywhere :lol: ) all suck in isolation. Even when isolated, a powerful early rex helps you get a large empire rolling early.

@Camarilla. You're assuming you can rush your early opponents. Resources may not be available. True, you have an advantage in grabbing the early copper but sometimes the starting placement can hem you into a small area. After the initial land grab Imp is a lower tier trait.
Cha, in addition to the increased happy cap also decreases xp needed to gain levels. This is most prominent when going from level 3 to level 4, since the majority of your cities will be producing level 3 units (barracks+1 civic). The 2xp saved from charasmatis is the equivilent of having a Military Instructor in every city. Also with a single Military Instructor the WP city can produce level 5 units with both civics running. An Imp leader requires 3MI. With the same number of exp earned in battles to get 1GG you will have 2GG's as Imp...One short. And as for it being worse in isolated starts, it is actually stronger. Isolated starts mean access to fewer religions, so fewer temples for happiness. And it means NO GG's until optics atleast if your Joao or astronomy if you're not. So Charasmatic is going to send better troops overseas than Imp.
RE:Expansive. Cheap settlers are better than cheap workers if there is a lot of land to grab. But unless you capture a lot of workers during a war you will be building them most of the game. I definately build many more workers than settlers. Discounting a building every city will have is strong too. And in the modern era when you have many unhealthy factors +2 :health: is awesome.

RE: Fastest Marathon build time for a settler. 38 turns is the 3rd fastest build time. An Imp leader settling on stone/marble plains hill and working a forested plains hill can build a settler in 34 turns. That is a more common scenario than forested plains deer. As well as settling on stone/marble/plains/hill and working forested plains deer. But the fastest build time is 30 turns. Stoneor marble plains hill working a forested plains hill with deer. Pretty darn rare but it is the fastest possible time to build a settler at pop1 with no improved tiles.

@Camarilla. You're assuming you can rush your early opponents. Resources may not be available. True, you have an advantage in grabbing the early copper but sometimes the starting placement can hem you into a small area. After the initial land grab Imp is a lower tier trait.
I don't always early rush them. Depends on the leader combo.
Resources are not such a big problem. If you are not very unlucky you will have at least 2 of horse/copper or iron in any map.
I generally don't have any problem with expanding even when i wonder-spam in capital.
Cha, in addition to the increased happy cap also decreases xp needed to gain levels. This is most prominent when going from level 3 to level 4, since the majority of your cities will be producing level 3 units (barracks+1 civic). The 2xp saved from charasmatis is the equivilent of having a Military Instructor in every city. Also with a single Military Instructor the WP city can produce level 5 units with both civics running. An Imp leader requires 3MI. With the same number of exp earned in battles to get 1GG you will have 2GG's as Imp...One short. And as for it being worse in isolated starts, it is actually stronger. Isolated starts mean access to fewer religions, so fewer temples for happiness. And it means NO GG's until optics atleast if your Joao or astronomy if you're not. So Charasmatic is going to send better troops overseas than Imp.
I know about IMP and CHA XP mechanics, I also attached an XLS calculation sheet in one of my previous posts in this thread.
First an AGG/CHA comparison;
assuming you are using melee/gunpowder units and combat1 promotion always, cha is better than AGG after level7.
Besides I prefer cha and imp over agg especially for the flexibility. you can use all promotions not only combat1 as a gift. and you can apply this advantage to all units not only melee/gunpowder.
ıf you are a defensive guy, prot would mostly be better than CHA.

About IMP/CHA xp comparison, well i love both traits so i feel like a referee in this case :P why don't you just play with CYRUS, friend? anyway...

first of all i don't play isolated maps as i'm a warmonger. and when i play a continents map, i still have 3/4 neighbours which is enough for many GGs. talking about total isolation (custom cont+1cont per team), i only played it during 2005 for a sandbox/tutorial training. because learning teching and economy comes first, then warmongering capabilities come in importance.

up to level 4/5, IMP is better. you can spam level 4/5 units with a few GGs with cha or with imp. but as IMP has more GGs, this means you will be able to spam level 4/5 units in more cities than CHA. more GGs, more military centers.
But after level 4/5, CHA is stronger about XP, gaining promotions faster. seen clearly in my calculations that it's practically not possible to spam out level 6/7 units unless you settle all GGs in 1 city.
but i still believe having more military centers and being able to spam level 4/5 units in more cities is better, so IMP shines more for me ABOUT XP.
assuming only a part of your military will achieve level 7/8 units, IMP seems better for the ability to have more GGs.
On the other hand, in an OCC game or on small maps CHA is much stonger as quality>quantity
(by the way i nearly always play on large or huge maps and i play marathon speed 100% of the time)

About the other advantages, well as i told earlier, a true comparison between IMP/CHA requires info on what the other trait and UU/UB will be.
by the way, did i mention how strong CYRUS is? :p

also, as i'm generally busy with building Stonehenge and/or great wall in the capital very early in the game, quick settlers help me a lot for saving time. and if there's a stone and/or marble nearby, for me this means the map is screaming for IMP trait :)


RE:Expansive. Cheap settlers are better than cheap workers if there is a lot of land to grab. But unless you capture a lot of workers during a war you will be building them most of the game. I definately build many more workers than settlers. Discounting a building every city will have is strong too. And in the modern era when you have many unhealthy factors +2 :health: is awesome.
well, nothing to discuss. OK, yes, fast workers are much much more important than settlers, yes. but it is 25 not even 50! it only gives me 4/5 turns in the start, and nothing else.
this is only for worker advantage. the rest advantages of EXP is great. but still not a top tier trait for me.
by the way, did i mention how much i hate Joao :)

RE: Fastest Marathon build time for a settler. 38 turns is the 3rd fastest build time. An Imp leader settling on stone/marble plains hill and working a forested plains hill can build a settler in 34 turns. That is a more common scenario than forested plains deer. As well as settling on stone/marble/plains/hill and working forested plains deer. But the fastest build time is 30 turns. Stoneor marble plains hill working a forested plains hill with deer. Pretty darn rare but it is the fastest possible time to build a settler at pop1 with no improved tiles.
hmm, yes that would be true. i never accountered such a thing. i rarely have stone/marble in BFC so that's normal. by the way, for a 30 or 34 turns instead of 38 or 43, i would never ever settle on a plains/hill/stone. it would be 5 hammers right? :rolleyes: then, it is just wasting hammers for me. i favor hammers very much. i even use it as a secondary economy type. build wealth/research.

for a true hammer economy;
spam workshops+caste system+state property
it has great synergy with SE. specialize cities with food resouces for GP farming and specialize your jungle-cleared flatlands for spamming workshops.
this method works very well for warmongering.

(...)hmm, yes that would be true. i never accountered such a thing. i rarely have stone/marble in BFC so that's normal. by the way, for a 30 or 34 turns instead of 38 or 43, i would never ever settle on a plains/hill/stone. it would be 5 hammers right? :rolleyes: then, it is just wasting hammers for me. i favor hammers very much. i even use it as a secondary economy type. build wealth/research.(...)
Well, in my opinion there's hardly ever a better option than to settle on plain hills stone/marble. So what it's two hammers less? You get food-independant, always-in-action empowered mine instead of a city square.

Let me rephrase - when on turn one (or the second, usually one has to move the settler) you're founding a city on a plain hills stone/marble your civilization produces 3 hammers/turn, not one. It's a tremendous boost to growth, you can work only food tiles and yet you'll be perfectly capable of building units, workers, whatever. No stagnation to build first workboat. You're saving also around 12 worker turns (depending on game speed), so that can give an edge on catching up after AI's too.
Those two hammers that are "lost" due to not building a quarry there can be easily replaced be using other mine - providing there is one :D

P.S. Sisiutil in his Ragnar ALC started on stone plain hills. And managed to win despite tough starting position.

So what are you saying here? If they're far away it's good, and if they're not close it's bad? :crazyeye:



Games are often won in the early game by your ability to block off land from the AI. That, to me, is a huge advantage.

The GG bonus lasts the entire game. So once the inevitable wars begin after your rex, imp still gives you a major benefit.

Isolated starts are fairly rare, and imp is not the only trait that is weaker in isolation. :p Agg, cha, prot (useless everywhere :lol: ) all suck in isolation. Even when isolated, a powerful early rex helps you get a large empire rolling early.

hmm, it means you agree with what i replied (post 76) about the effects of IMP with isolation/close borders with enemy. yes, most other traits suck as well. not only warmongering ones but also creative and spiritual.
but there is one think i HAVE TO disagree that protective is useless everywhere.
1 EDITING HERE:
DESPITE MY FOLLOWING COMMENTS, I THINK PROT IS A LOW TIER TRAIT. BUT NOT USELESS.
first, as i'm trying to impress you have to judge the strength of one trait together with otehr trait and UU/UB.
assume Charlemagne;
early settle on horse or copper. try to settle on hills. and research archery as well. give CG and guerilla promotions. build the great wall.
then go anger a stupid aggressive AI. try to raze at least one of his cities. so he shall hate you all the time with
-3 u dcelared war on us
-2 u razed one of our cities.
he will hate you all the time even if he is a religious fanatic sharing religion with you.
how good that he hates you.
BTS AI is more clever but still 90% of the time they attack same cities stupidly. i faced only a few times that they surprised me and attacked from opposite border from a open-border agreement with my other neighbour

he will come all the time and he will gift you many GGs. after you have enough GGs, go slaughter all you see to the horizon with landknecht.
Plus the rathaus... So Charlemagne is a fearsome attacker not only a defensive guy.

Yes, you can say this is an exception as he is also IMP. but what about others?

* churchill? can you say he is bad? not as strong as Vicky or Lizzy but still good.

* Saladin is clearly weak.

* Mao doesn't seem to have a good combo but however AI plays him very well. He attacks all the time with level 4/5 units. In one of my emperor games with Cyrus, he was the 3rd after me. Huayna Capac was the 1st at that game. He was very lucky with map location. I understood selecting rocky climate is not so good at that game.

* Qin Shi Huang. I heard some guys like him but I don't. I also didn't see AI playing him well. he is most of the time defensive, and he never declared war on me. I go settle 1 tile near his border and he is still catious. :) Obviously cho-ko-nu is better for Mao.

* Tokugawa. One of the guys I fear most, AI plays him very well. But I wouldn't play him. I think his combo is weak.

* Wang-Kon. He seems weak all the time. Well, in mid/late game, I generally don't fear AIs playing CE. I go pillage most of their towns with spies and they are done. But in early game some FIN leaders can be tough to beat.

*Gilgamesh. I wouldn't play him but AI plays him very strongly. He REXes good. He is creative, he has early and cheap ziggurat taking care of maintenance and he defends well.

So overall, half of them seem weak to me and half of them are good.

beats me how having +2 happy in isolation(where, at least on fractal, you get 1 happy resource, 2 if extremely lucky, and chances are that maybe both are calendar ones) is useless...

it's 40% pop. increase in cap and 50% in rest....

but I guess that's how imp. becomes a top trait...

first, let me add that i forgot about sitting bull within prot leaders. although i like PHI trait much, he is mediocre for me.

Well, in my opinion there's hardly ever a better option than to settle on plain hills stone/marble. So what it's two hammers less? You get food-independant, always-in-action empowered mine instead of a city square.
Let me rephrase - when on turn one (or the second, usually one has to move the settler) you're founding a city on a plain hills stone/marble your civilization produces 3 hammers/turn, not one. It's a tremendous boost to growth, you can work only food tiles and yet you'll be perfectly capable of building units, workers, whatever. No stagnation to build first workboat. You're saving also around 12 worker turns (depending on game speed), so that can give an edge on catching up after AI's too.
Those two hammers that are "lost" due to not building a quarry there can be easily replaced be using other mine - providing there is one :D

Hmm. I thought one more time. 2F+3H+1C is pretty good you are right. for capital at least. but for later cities, i don't think i would unless if it's near border.
If I didn't have enough hills in starting loc, i would regenerate. 2/3 food resources+ at least 3/4 hills is the best for me.
having at least 3/4 hills (5/6 would be better) is even more important for me than settling on a plains/hill.
that 1 hammer coming from plains/hill can be replaced with mines. but if you don't have hills enough you have prod problem. very bad for wonders and many more things.
metal casting enables workshops but they aren't so good until guilds.

beats me how having +2 happy in isolation(where, at least on fractal, you get 1 happy resource, 2 if extremely lucky, and chances are that maybe both are calendar ones) is useless...

it's 40% pop. increase in cap and 50% in rest....

but I guess that's how imp. becomes a top trait...
there's sth wrong here. tell me what i face generally. fractal maps generate a rectangular/drifting pangaea 75% of the time. and 25%, it generates 2 continents. 1 quite larger one with most AIs and 1 more with 2 AI. even if there are 2 continents, you are on the larger one most of the time.
but still different type of resources are not scatterred all through the map.
i mean some resources are common for allover the cotinent. but some are regional. still you will have access to many resource types.
resources matter is another reason why i don't like isolation.

beats me how having +2 happy in isolation(where, at least on fractal, you get 1 happy resource, 2 if extremely lucky, and chances are that maybe both are calendar ones) is useless...

it's 40% pop. increase in cap and 50% in rest....

but I guess that's how imp. becomes a top trait...

Just get hrule early and happiness ceases to be a problem.. Quite often the first classical era tech i get...

Just get hrule early and happiness ceases to be a problem.. Quite often the first classical era tech i get...
hmm yes. for a CE game hrule is very strong in early game, the earlier the better.
for a SE game, repr would be better if you could build the mids.
if you miss the mids, going ahead with hrule is a MUST.
but still i research many techs before monarchy. currency, code of laws etc. instead of 12-15 pop a few cities, i prefer REXing anyway. and assign some specialists. so no need to grow pop very fast.
as i generally play on maps with 1 or 2 continents at most, i have a few lux resources. and they are enough for early game

beats me how having +2 happy in isolation(where, at least on fractal, you get 1 happy resource, 2 if extremely lucky, and chances are that maybe both are calendar ones) is useless...

it's 40% pop. increase in cap and 50% in rest....

but I guess that's how imp. becomes a top trait...

Well, I said WEAKER in isolation, not useless. What sucks is that you're losing 1/2 the bonus of the trait for most of the game (the 25% bonus to XP) - which is true of all military traits in isolation. Obviously nobody's gonna sneeze at +2 :) but if you're running HR it loses a considerable amount of its value.

Also, I'm not arguing about whether imp is a "top tier" trait (whatever that means), merely that it can be a powerful point of leverage in a lot of games. IMO, the synergy between imp and the 2nd trait and certain wonders (GW when not isolated) is very important.

Well, I said WEAKER in isolation, not useless. What sucks is that you're losing 1/2 the bonus of the trait for most of the game (the 25% bonus to XP) - which is true of all military traits in isolation. Obviously nobody's gonna sneeze at +2 :) but if you're running HR it loses a considerable amount of its value.

Also, I'm not arguing about whether imp is a "top tier" trait (whatever that means), merely that it can be a powerful point of leverage in a lot of games. IMO, the synergy between imp and the 2nd trait and certain wonders (GW when not isolated) is very important.

well, ok now. sure it is less beneficial in isolation. but i almost all the time want to ask why you have to play isolated? :) i don't like isolation...
when i first encountered this thread a few weeks ago, it was the time that i found out how IMP was strong. before that i didn't like it much. in my early posts, i also told i believed it is weaker in isolation. but yes, never useless.

did u say useless or did you say weak or weaker, i don't remember. anyway.

i also believe it's a top tier trait. but my top tier is a bit large. i like most traits equally and my list can change a bit sometimes. nowadays i feel like below
1) ORG (strongest)
2) PHI, IMP, CHA (top tier)
3) FIN, IND (mid-top tier)
4) AGG, CRE, EXP (mid tier)
5) PRO, SPI (low tier)

still, even a mid or low tier trait can have a good synergy in the hands of a good leader.

examples;
*although i put CRE in mid tier, i like it
cathy is a very good rexer
pericles is a very good SE guy with cheap libraries
willem has dike, a coastal no-brainer guy

Wow... FIN middle-tier... SPI bottom-tier...

...Wow.

Wow... FIN middle-tier... SPI bottom-tier...

...Wow.

yes. i agree FIN is a no-brainer, very easy to win. and i love vicky :)
still i don't like cottaging much and favor SE more.
remember every cottage takes out 1 pop from a city roughly

besides, i don't whip & i don't draft.
well, i play civ since 93 or was it 94?
in civ series, food&pop is always everything

still i don't like cottaging much and favor SE more.
remember every cottage takes out 1 pop from a city roughly

So does every specialist. In both cases it's just the price you pay.

IMP is another one of those traits I have gained more respect for as I go up in levels of difficulty. At Monarch and below, its not a big bonus. Sure you get some nice perks, but nothing overly gamebreaking, because the start of the game has far less urgency. At Emp and Immortal (and Deity, as Rusten said in his OP), getting those early settlers out cheap and fast is immeasurable.

Just out of curiosity, what difficulty level/map type/game speed do you prefer, camarilla? I think those factors are key in how people rate traits.

well, i play civ since 93 or was it 94?
in civ series, food&pop is always everything
Before Civ IV, the formula was simple. Ten cities of 1-pop works 20 tiles. One city of 10-pop only works 11 tiles.

Civ IV changed that formula, well, not really changed it, it smashed it to little bits and pieces, because now you cannot afford 10 cities of 1-pop (unless you play below Prince).

Going to take a wild guess here and answer my own question:
Just out of curiosity, what difficulty level/map type/game speed do you prefer, camarilla?
You play below Monarch, and build the Mids every single game. Nothing wrong with that, but its hard to argue the value of traits at those levels. As I said in my other post, the value of many traits changes as you get to the higher levels of difficulty.

^Agreed, i'd rate financial highest on all levels up to immortal but on deity i'd rather be creative or i'd have no tiles left to build cottages on.

About Imp in isolation:

There is a thing that people forget about isolation: it is a infrastructure game. For you to be competitive, you need to build a lot of buildings ( that are not that cheap in terms of hammers as units :p ) and any hammer you can save from settler making is a hammer plus you have for a library or a courthouse ( if you do things right, OFC ). And remember that settlers are pretty expensive in terms of hammers and that :whipped: Imp settlers are very :cool: if you whip them at pop 4.....

Not uber, but definitely not worthless. You just have to play it right, but that applies to all traits

The value of hammers is big early (workers, settlers, warriors) and rushing, but once you go cottages/scientists, you're clearly sacrificing hammers to beakers. Unless you're wonderspamming, you only need granaries, and maybe some libraries and markets in isolation.

being able to rex is cute; actually being able to afford the rex is somethin' else

look at cathy in warlords(when cre didn't get it boost - probably now cre is #1 trait on deity) - you could rex and you could block. Imba, right? Reality is that, if you didn't manage to block in tops 3 cities, you were likely tanking; libs. weren't half cost.

imp is nice; even better since you can chop the settlers while building archers and not stalling growth. But from this to top tier is a long long way... The matter is still if geography allows you to block in a limited # of cities(3 without any gem/gold/silver). And as I said before, it's not a philosophy to learn the pattern of how the ai settles. Probably best situation for imp is when another imp leader is near you and can box you in(it's useless to know the pattern if that simply means you'll get boxed in since you'll be spitting settlers slower then he does) - knowing the pattern would just tell you you'll lose the spots and there's nothing you can do.

another example would be oranje vs cathy; sure, with cathy you can spit settlers faster; however, if geography requires 4 cities instead of 3 for a seal off, oranje is better simply because with 2-3 timely placed cottages or working a couple of lakes probably you can afford the 4th city, while with cathy you won't. So your ability to settle is perfectly irrelevant since you can't afford it. Even gilgamesh with something as stupid as protective is better since you get the zigurat on your way to writing.

If you don't play below your level, you settle yourself... 6-8 cities on average. And the 1st settler is free anyway and speed is relevant for the 1st 3-4 settlers(those which you can afford city maintenance for).

I play only random leader; that being said, any bonus is good. Even a warrior from a hut is better then hostile villagers. But that doesn't mean a free warrior from a hut is better then a free tech from a hut... Half civic. maintenance(your 1st city will put you at -2 at 100% sci. instead of -3, which is quite big when you're producing overall 12 gpt), whip. ch at 4 pop. instead of 8, whip lighthouse at 2 pop. instead of 4, half priced factories vs 50% production to settler... com'on...

And as I said before, it's not a philosophy to learn the pattern of how the ai settles.

Can you elaborate on that please? I always find myself guessing wrong about the speed and spots the AI will settle. Are there any quick rules of thumb to predict that?

rules of thumb... no, but if I guess 70-80% of the time... it's good enough for me :p

rule of thumb would be they don't "leap" 8 tiles away from cap. to block you; they progressively move at ~4 tiles space.

speed - usually they seem to start settler in both cities before you do(deity). That on around 10 times I've checked in wb. However, their chopping seems random, so speed is rather random. If I can say I guess 70-80% the area they want next to settle, speed I can't guess(but speed is rather irrelevant, since if you make a settler in x turns, that's that, nothing you can do to speed it up anyway - beside chopping which you probably do regardless)

that being said, last game I knew charlie would beat me to both spots(was quite tight and he had desert on the other side); when, I didn't know, but starting the settler at 2 and whipping/chopping and he still beat me... didn't know the exact speed, but knowing wouldn't have serve me anything :p

bottom line would be - where and can you reach 1st or not; if you're not in a combo of non-imp(you) - imp(him) I'd say you can get there 1st. And anyway, you probably don't settle asap and wait for him to show up.

So does every specialist. In both cases it's just the price you pay.
although a specialists doesn't give 2food like a regular tile would, still i have to diasagree with what you say. when you cottage spam everywhere, assuming a few farms left for irrigation line, most of your city pops will change between 19-23.
if you GP farm in a city you will have 28-33pop cities which will enable you to have much more specialists. PLUS, a few good settled great merchants play a snowball effect.
however in a CE game i don't cottage spam everywhere and in a SE game i don't GP farm everywhere. soem hammer cities, some coastal cities help a lot.

besides, in some games i use the State property+caste system+workshop option heavily


Just out of curiosity, what difficulty level/map type/game speed do you prefer, camarilla? I think those factors are key in how people rate traits.

Going to take a wild guess here and answer my own question:

You play below Monarch, and build the Mids every single game. Nothing wrong with that, but its hard to argue the value of traits at those levels. As I said in my other post, the value of many traits changes as you get to the higher levels of difficulty.
Difficulty: i assume you mean no offense about what you say then answer.
it's been months since the last time i played below monarch. shortly i can say, i win everytime on monarch, any map type. emperor is a good challenge for me, sometimes winning sometimes not. and immortal, not tried much.

i think you might guess it right, cos' a low level player guy would never rank the ORG trait as the stongest.
on levels higher than monarch, economy is a bigger problem. so i feel you need 1 trait for handling economy better. FIN/PHI or ORG would help.

for example CYRUS is a beast up to monarch but emperor/immortal is hard with him. i've been the 2nd after huayna capac on an emperor/highlands game with him. i will try emperor with Cyrus once again. Darius seems easier on emperor/immortal.

MY FAVOURITE OPTIONS, map types:
I generally play with default options thru main menu/single player/play now

Most of the time, i select shuffle map so i wouldn't know what would come, surprise!
still my favourite map types are the ones with massive continents (1 or 2 at most) favoring warring.

1EDIT HERE: Forgot to mention about speed and map size; I play marathon/epic on large/huge maps most of the time. And I feel -though most guys think opposite- larger maps are harder.
for ex: you are Persia. you have immortals and they are of great value especially until iron working. they become weaker against swords still they have a chance and against maces they don't have any chance nearly. so in that period of time until neighbours research civil service, you can kill anybody on any diff level, doesn't matter much. in standart maps, opponents are closer with less cities, so much easier to raze all. roughly in standart maps you can kill 4 AI before immortal get weaker, but on large/huge maps, 1or 2 AI you can kill. after immortals get weaker (mace time), you will be on the same level with other AIs, only exception will be your GGs. you can still kill an AI but harder.

in an immortal game, I early razed Mayans but as it was a large map, Joao had many swords when I moved to him after pacal, and lost the fight. Mayans were 15 tiles away from me and Joao was 30 or 40 tiles away. it was a good experience. but by the way, i sometimes attack enemy only to anger him. i especially like attacking guys good in tech so as to slow him down.

TRAITS/EFFECTING FACTORS:
sure difficulty, map type etc. many things effect the value of traits. my trait ranking was according to what i like most/suits me best.

FINANCIAL TRAIT:
I play very good with a fin leader still it's not my style. at the first glance FIN+cottage spamming seem very strong. but it's just because it's easy to do it. you can achieve an economy on same/stronger level with types else than CE.

SE/MIDS: SE without mids/early representation is still strong. in fact, if i don't have stone nearby, i don't even try to build the mids 'cos it would take rougly 50 more turns for the capital without stone. (in marathon scale)

early REXing and military is my first priority in every game. so hereditary rule isn't bad for early eras neither.

MY WARRING STRATEGY:
Depends much about UU but generap principles, try surprise your enemy. have good relations, sometimes sharing his religion. travel all his country with a spy, count his units. multiply this by 1.5 for worst case.
this number makes between 50units generally for large maps (1EDIT HERE: for mid age). when 50 are ready, attack him suddenly. i can generally take 1/3 of his land in 5/6 turns and then force him for peace, wait for 10 turns to heal up and relocate all units to my new border and strike again in 11th turn. including 10turn gaps between each war, i capture 2/3 or 5/6 of his land in 20/30 turns. then capitulize. my vassal will help me fighting the 2nd neighbour, he will not be able to raze any city of the enemy but still units are units.

during this 30 turns i pay a lot to unit maintenance. especially when pacifism is adopted. generally 50 for that one and 50 for going out of border.

Theoretically speaking, every trait except financial and perhaps philosophical is underrated, while those two are overrated :p.

I find extra GG's very useful, but then I attach more of the suckers than other players most likely. Super CR units and mounted are excellent options for non-medic III GG's. It takes a little doing to get a combat VI mounted troop, but a combat VI march cavalry is sound and when mixed with rifles pretty unlikely to die. A CR III combat III march guy is similar - combat III comes very late on such a unit and just throwing axes or a shock mace in there will keep the GG from coming up as a defender easily. Of course, combat V-VI mounted doesn't die easy to begin with, and since spear/pikes are pretty much the only things in a typical game that could touch them. You could again just mix in a super troop like this with more conventional stack defense. March is a very helpful promo, because it means attacking with a very high odds unit and not stopping to heal with it. Shorter wars, less casualties.

IMP still isn't top tier though. IMO stronger than protective at least and very usable/convenient in the early game. You do save a wonder's worth of hammers in the early goings if you make a normal amount of settlers, and that has to count for something, right? It theoretically means you could build a wonder without slowing expansion past what a normal civ's would be...not sure what that counts for but even without stone it could mean SH or GW, with stone or marble maybe even mids or TOA (which I'd NEVER build w/o marble). Or, these hammers could be put into a jump on the ever-popular GLH, which this forum is understandably an adoring fan of.

I personally like the "five or more axes extra" wonder. Very useful, and what synergy! We can get the GG's early.

by the way, one more thing about the traits. i want to say one more time that (i didn't count how many times i said this) i believe a trait is better to be ranked together with its combination; what the other trait is, what the UU/UB and starting techs are etc etc.
so in fact ranking leader would be more correct but the list would be so long :crazyeye: that i shan't list now :) everybody would be bored as well :P

still if i would rank traits, i try to remember & imagine a ranking of average of all leaders with it. that gives me an idea about that trait.

anyway, it's good to have different responses to my ranking.

so as ranking traits requires info on what the total combo will be, each trait bears many many exceptions. i tried to give a few examples to these exceptions (cathy, pericles and willem being very strong while i believe CRE itself is a mid-tier trait) in my post 93.

@snowlywhite
you told cre is #1 on deity. i don't know, i have to try deity once to tell.
however, as i said above, cre is a very special and strange trait. i like it with some leaders but not with some others.

and one more thing is that AI plays creative leaders very well :) it suits AI tendencies and some leaders' personalities well maybe, who knows.
AI seems to play FIN leaders well as well. but towns are so easily destroyed with spies and it requires such less esp points, AI forgets about this.

You do save a wonder's worth of hammers in the early goings if you make a normal amount of settlers, and that has to count for something, right? It theoretically means you could build a wonder without slowing expansion past what a normal civ's would be...not sure what that counts for but even without stone it could mean SH or GW, with stone or marble maybe even mids or TOA (which I'd NEVER build w/o marble). Or, these hammers could be put into a jump on the ever-popular GLH, which this forum is understandably an adoring fan of.

I personally like the "five or more axes extra" wonder. Very useful, and what synergy! We can get the GG's early.
Exactly! You don't rank IMP as top-tier but still think very similar to me.
building wonders/units w/o slowing expansion...

i agree that "5 more axes" is also a very good wonder :)
5 more axes give you 1 gg which wo