It was hard between Philosophical and Industrious for me, but I chose Industrious...I just loooove wonderspam :lol: however in a OCC I prefer Philosophical a little for more GPs to settle. (Why isn't there a Philosophical and Industrious leader? Whhhhyyyyy)

Anyway, which is your overall favorite trait?

I'd have to go towards Financial. I love to cottage spam the countryside, so this works wonderfully for me. After that organized, because I like to expand more than I should, so this greatly helps.

Conveniently, there's a civ that has both of those with a unique building that is useful and a unique unit that is amazing for its era. Cha-ching

I'd have to go towards Financial. I love to cottage spam the countryside, so this works wonderfully for me. After that organized, because I like to expand more than I should, so this greatly helps.

Conveniently, there's a civ that has both of those with a unique building that is useful and a unique unit that is amazing for its era. Cha-ching

:p

Darius is very strange looking however.

Spiritual may not look like a strong trait for most people in term of production or economy boost for your empire, but it's so damn addictive. :goodjob:

I like charismatic best of all, it allows your cities to have population of 7-8 inspite of 5-6 pop. rival's cities early in the game. it's a very significant advantage. +nice xp bonus, it's cool for warmongering.
i like charismatic+organized or charismatic+imperialistic best of all.

I bet I'm the only person who votes protective :p And it's not a joke vote either. Organized, Financial, Spiritual all come as close seconds.

I went with Philosophical, though Spiritual and Financial are right up there too. It's just such a flexible trait, and most of my game strategies for various leaders make heavy use of Great People--so getting more of them is just an incredible boost.

Its Industrial for me. Financial is a close second best.

Financial all the way. There's no bad financial leader. (not even wang or vic)

Spirtual for me. I like to switch civics around quite a lot, and I play Marathon a lot too, so it's really useful. Even in faster games I dislike the Anarchy though.

Close second were Financial, third Charismatic, fourth Philosophical

Financial all the way. There's no bad financial leader. (not even wang or vic)

How is Victoria bad? My attempts at CE aren't going so well, but I do well with Victoria because of the extra fast settlers, and when I get invaded I get tons of GGs to make better promoted units to save my cottages. She's one of the better Financial leaders IMO.

I think Financial is the strongest, although I also rate IND and PHI quite highly.

I definitely want one of these although one is enough (HC wins everything because he has excellent Uniques as well. However, there are many leaders I prefer over Elizabeth since I'd rather have a support trait that aids early production and I can't fully leverage FIN and PHI at the same time. IND/PHI would be my combination of choice if it existed)

How is Victoria bad? My attempts at CE aren't going so well, but I do well with Victoria because of the extra fast settlers, and when I get invaded I get tons of GGs to make better promoted units to save my cottages. She's one of the better Financial leaders IMO.

Because imperialistic is probably the weakest trait in the game. If you're going to play as england then Elizabeth blows her away.

Because imperialistic is probably the weakest trait in the game. If you're going to play as england then Elizabeth blows her away.

Imperialistic the weakest in the game? :confused: What game of Civ4 are you playing? :lol:

Imperialistic is an excellent support trait that will greatly enhance others. For Augustus, it makes it easy to spam wonders without neglecting expansion which can be a challenge otherwise. For Victoria, it allows a sizable empire that actually does very well in tech (many cottages = weak-ish production so the bonus to settlers is especially valuable). Caesar would be another REXing monster if it wasn't easier to simply take cities etc etc.
And while Catherine has nothing to maintain a huge empire, her unparalleled ability to block off AIs can save one from many headaches on the higher levels.

Hard choice between Charismatic and Creative. I picked Charismatic, since I've liked it for longer or something, I dunno.

In before financial dominating the poll and getting like half the votes, as always.

I like charismatic best of all, it allows your cities to have population of 7-8 inspite of 5-6 pop. rival's cities early in the game. it's a very significant advantage. +nice xp bonus, it's cool for warmongering.
i like charismatic+organized or charismatic+imperialistic best of all.

Agreed. Without any of the early happiness resources, you're limited to size 5 in your capital and size 4 in the other cities until you have advanced a bit in technology. It's hard to build an economy with such tiny cities. The basic happiness bonus of the charismatic trait raises this size limit by 1 and the monument happiness bonus raises it by another point. It's a great early game boost and it stays fairly useful throughout the game. The experience boost is a nice extra.

Financial is also a very nice trait because it boost your economy in a fairly straightforward way. I also like organized for it's cost decreasing effect and nice production boost on courthouses. Both these traits help you maintain the cost of early game expansion easier and I like them for that element.
I also like the expansive trait because it gives a nice production boost to workers and granaries. Both are very important elements to develop your cities.

Those are my 4 favourite traits in order of how I value them.

I voted Financial, no reason to explain why.
I also like charismatic, because of the 1 or 2 extra happines. In early game this can be big.
The less xp needed for promotions is also nice.

I voted Industrious not so much for the wonderspam, but the increased production on the forge. Charismatic would probably be my next favorite.

Creative, I find the 2 :culture: very usefull

philosophical, cause I'm a GP whore.

When I started playing the game, Industrious was my favourite trait, because I liked to wonder-spam. Then I liked Financial, and now it's Organized which has grown on me. Lower maintenance, cheap courthouses and cheap factories are just great.

When I play Zara Yaqob I often find myself checking if I really play Marathon speed as intended, because my research rate and all my buildings are so fast.

Philosophical since I typically run a SE. I also like Spiritual for the diplomatic and production flexibility.

Creative for me, without a doubt. It even helps Kubili Khan!
:culture::culture::culture::culture:

Organized. -50% Civic Upkeep, and cheap Lighthouses, Courthouses and Factories. :D

Charismatic. Excellent trait no matter how you play the game.


The most addictive traits, though, are easily Charismatic and Spiritual.

Surprised that there is not more votes for charismatic (my vote). Not only is it a sound warmonger trait, but it's also a free +2 :) for most of the game, a benefit that has large implications on the ease of the early game. It's my vote for top trait.

IMP and EXP are close seconds, as all directly benefit REXing like hell and taking good cities. Of course I like aggressive and organized too, but not as much as the aforementioned 3.

I will happily make use of any trait though.

I surprised no one voted for aggresive yet, do only builders vote on polls?

I surprised no one voted for aggresive yet, do only builders vote on polls?
I'm not surprised that Aggressive isn't a favourite trait. It's great, but you need something else that will allow you to keep up in techs and/or help your economy recover from the cost of war. It's no surprise to me, therefore, that Alexander is an often-employed Aggressive leader, since his Philosophical trait is ideal for running a SE to support his conquests. Ragnar, who's Financial, is a lot of fun to war with too, especially on water-based maps.

I'm not surprised that Aggressive isn't a favourite trait. It's great, but you need something else that will allow you to keep up in techs and/or help your economy recover from the cost of war. It's no surprise to me, therefore, that Alexander is an often-employed Aggressive leader, since his Philosophical trait is ideal for running a SE to support his conquests. Ragnar, who's Financial, is a lot of fun to war with too, especially on water-based maps.

Yes, that does make sense. Aggresive does nothing for the economy. But protective has 2 votes and is not only worse then aggresive for warmongering. It does nothing for the economy too.

Charismatic is just a better military trait. The fact that it works on all units, combined with the 2 happy faces early on is just a huge improvement over cheap barracks and combat 1 on melee and gunpowder.

Not that it's a bad trait though, Ragnar and Hammurabi are both top notch leaders.

PHI. I read somewhere here that this trait may have an unfair advantage. For me, it works well for almost any of the victories. I like the Philisophical/caste system/mercantilism/pacifism combination ---->:gp:

-jb

Aggressive and Industrious are my two favorite traits, and coincidentally my favorite leader is Stalin. I hate financial because it's too powerful (to the point that it makes the game too easy), so I avoid using any leader that possesses it.

I actually prefer aggressive to charismatic. The double production of barracks in the early game is ridiculous; before most leaders are able to get units with ANY promotions it's possible for an aggressive leader to be producing combat 1+city raider axemen. Although it "only" applies to melee units and gunpowder units, I make these the foundations of my army (to the point where I almoust -never- build archery units).

I like industrious, but not for wonder spam. Stalin's double speed forges and double speed barracks means that, in medieval times, he's going to be pumping out highly promoted axemen faster than anyone else can keep up with. Also, although industrious is great for beating people to wonders, it's an oft-neglected point that industrious makes your national wonders produce twice as fast. Thus, Stalin is able to get a city with Heroic Epic+Westpoint+Forge+Barracks far faster than any other leader in the game.

Yes, that does make sense. Aggressive does nothing for the economy. But protective has 2 votes and is not only worse then aggresive for warmongering. It does nothing for the economy too.
Well, though Aggressive might not have a lot of huge fans, it doesn't have many detractors either. It's a good, decent, useful trait--handy, but not game-breaking.

Protective, on the other hand, has no shortage of people griping about how it's the weakest trait in the game (including yours truly). It's no surprise to me, then, that there is an anti-backlash backlash of people who are willing to defend Protective (Protective's protectors?). You know, just like there's a small, forlorn group of Jar-Jar Binks fans out there somewhere. :lol:

Well, though Aggressive might not have a lot of huge fans, it doesn't have many detractors either. It's a good, decent, useful trait--handy, but not game-breaking.

Protective, on the other hand, has no shortage of people griping about how it's the weakest trait in the game (including yours truly). It's no surprise to me, then, that there is an anti-backlash backlash of people who are willing to defend Protective (Protective's protectors?). You know, just like there's a small, forlorn group of Jar-Jar Binks fans out there somewhere. :lol:

I prefer to think of it as more like the millions of people who just don't get why The Shawshank Redemption is so great are the people who just don't "get it" as to how to dominate with protective ;)

Trying to reduce the position of the lovers of the protective trait to just being a reaction to all the hate for it is a mistake. Some of us take the trait, those incredible resourceless brick-wall archery/gunpowder units, and cram them down the CPU's throat to tremendous effect. Honestly, while protective isn't a trait that I want on its own, it compliments just about any way I choose to play very well, be it peaceful builder, warmonger, SE/CE/EE, whatever, which is something I can't say about any other trait. I really love protective, and did before I realized everyone was calling it "the worst trait" etc etc.

:p

Darius is very strange looking however.

He's Cornelius from Planet of the Apes !

Honestly, protective is a trait that I want on its own, but it compliments just about any way I choose to play very well, be it peaceful builder, warmonger, SE/CE/EE, whatever, which is something I can't say about any other trait. I really love protective, and did before I realized everyone was calling it "the worst trait" etc etc.

Strange, I would think traits like Expansive, Creative, or Organized - the latter of which, to stay on topic, is my favorite trait - would have a versatile benefit than Protective, which doesn't do anything for you when you're not fighting. I suppose that's just my peacemongering shining through, though.

Not that I don't like Protective, mind you. It's arguably my second favorite trait, to the point that I modded Darius to be Org/Pro just so I could play that trait combo.

Personally, my favorite is charismatic because either the military experience bonus or the happiness bonus (much more worth it than a health bonus since you can combat unhealthiness with food) is great alone, but charismatic has them together. I like to use it in combination with organized. That means I can have higher populations of cities from the extra happiness, as well as more cities from my stronger army, without as much of a penalty. Most of the time I end up being the leader in population. I usually play unrestricted leaders with the HRE, so I can also get rauthuses much faster too, making it easy to control a stable empire (and faster lighthouses from organized are also very useful in any coastal city's expansion, especially when it has little production).

Strange, I would think traits like Expansive, Creative, or Organized - the latter of which, to stay on topic, is my favorite trait - would have a versatile benefit than Protective, which doesn't do anything for you when you're not fighting.

That's not quite true--the cheap walls count towards your power rating, so they may help stave off an invasion just by being there.

Strange, I would think traits like Expansive, Creative, or Organized - the latter of which, to stay on topic, is my favorite trait - would have a versatile benefit than Protective, which doesn't do anything for you when you're not fighting. I suppose that's just my peacemongering shining through, though.

Not that I don't like Protective, mind you. It's arguably my second favorite trait, to the point that I modded Darius to be Org/Pro just so I could play that trait combo.

Of course it does something for you when you're not fighting... It gives you a big enough stick - without having to focus on military oriented things (upgrades, getting anything but basic archery/gunpowder techs) to survive the wars which, in my experience, do come when you're going all peace-like. Protective is the "big stick" of "walk softly and carry a big stick" and nothing bails you out of an unwanted war that you don't want to dump a ton of resources into like protective longbows. A real feeling of security is definitely "something" when you're not at war.

Ok, and actually, I do have to give a nod to organized... That helps in every way I can even think of playing. One of my biggest gripes with the game is that Pro/Org isn't in it :( Not a bad idea for Darius. I may make Mao pro/org just for kicks.

Now, before any sort of debate starts up, I'm out for a few hours. Have fun ;)

Being a OCC whore, I have to go with Philosophical. :gp: :king:

That's not quite true--the cheap walls count towards your power rating, so they may help stave off an invasion just by being there.

That's true, I'd forgotten about that.

Now, before any sort of debate starts up, I'm out for a few hours. Have fun ;)

I didn't really plan on this turning into a debate, I just was curious as to your reasoning. But yeah, it's really a matter of preference and I won't press this further.

That's true, I'd forgotten about that.



I didn't really plan on this turning into a debate, I just was curious as to your reasoning. But yeah, it's really a matter of preference and I won't press this further.

Heh, it's turned into a debate several times before on this issue. It is, ultimately, a matter of prerence - and I don't fault others for having notably different preferences than myself, since I can see the merit in most other traits. I've just had some people insist that I was "wrong" in my choice, so it often turns into a debate.

You know, I do wonder though, why they left Pro/Org out of the game. I mean, by most peoples' standards, it's pairing a good trait with the worst trait, so it's not like it would have been considered overpowered... Though for me, it would be in the running for my favorite trait combo. Oh well - I hope they do patch in another Civ, but I won't hold my breath.

Hm, itd be interesting to see if there was any correlation between the difficulty levels people played and what traits they liked.

My three favorite traits, creative, spiritual, philisophical in that order. Im still a little torn between which is truely better, spiritual or philisophical. Creative however, is just amazing. Saving yourself the hammers from building a monument, and then saving the hammers from building a library, means you can get an se up and running very quickly.

If I play Pericles and get plenty of room to expand (no need to rush someone), I've gotten 4+ great scientists prior to 0 ad.

My real problem with philisophical, is the somewhat lack of flexibility. You really need to be running a reasonably large part of your empire in an se to take full advantage, and sometimes an se just isnt appropriate for the terrain you're given. Spiritual on the other hand, if you happen to be running a large specialist population, you can just switch in and out of pacifism at will. Tho I really can't make up my mind between Hatty and Pericles.

Hm, itd be interesting to see if there was any correlation between the difficulty levels people played and what traits they liked.

One thing I'm noticing a lot is that a lot of deity players aren't such big fans of financial, and vastly favour SE... I still love Finanaical though - guess it's a sign that I'm not quite at that level yet ;)

I'm working on Immortal (20%'ish win rate) and have Emperor at an 80%+ win rate. Huge/18 civs/big and small/islands mixed in/random climate are my settings.

I usually build a ton of wonders, so I chose Industrious

One thing I'm noticing a lot is that a lot of deity players aren't such big fans of financial, and vastly favour SE... I still love Finanaical though - guess it's a sign that I'm not quite at that level yet ;)

I'm working on Immortal (20%'ish win rate) and have Emperor at an 80%+ win rate. Huge/18 civs/big and small/islands mixed in/random climate are my settings.

There are a few deity level players who are very active on the strategy and tips forum and use an economy largely based on specialists. But it's not true that all deity level players favour the SE. Most deity level players probably use a mixed economy, some a bit more cottages, some a bit more specialists. There are probably very few deity level players who would say they play a pure SE or a pure CE.

I play on deity sometimes and I rate financial as the second best trait. Charismatic is my personal favourite.

You know, I do wonder though, why they left Pro/Org out of the game. I mean, by most peoples' standards, it's pairing a good trait with the worst trait, so it's not like it would have been considered overpowered... Though for me, it would be in the running for my favorite trait combo. Oh well - I hope they do patch in another Civ, but I won't hold my breath.

It is an odd omission. In fact, part of the reason I chose Darius for modding was because I thought Fin/Org is too strong a combo, and I like the Persian civ a lot, so it was partially a way of redeeming a leader I never otherwise played. I might try it with Mao like you said, though; I love pavillions.

On that note, I think a Cha/Cre leader would be a lot of fun.

It is an odd omission. In fact, part of the reason I chose Darius for modding was because I thought Fin/Org is too strong a combo, and I like the Persian civ a lot, so it was partially a way of redeeming a leader I never otherwise played. I might try it with Mao like you said, though; I love pavillions.

On that note, I think a Cha/Cre leader would be a lot of fun.

Aye, pavillions are great... Don't discount those cho-ko nu's though. They're a spectacular special unit when paired with a protective leader. The biggest problem with him is that he doesn't have any economic perks to help your economy along, but people overestimate the need for organized, financial, or philosophical to keep your economy from getting too sluggish - it's just a bit tougher without any of them. A lot of players have a heck of a time weaning off financial leaders.

One thing I'm noticing a lot is that a lot of deity players aren't such big fans of financial, and vastly favour SE...

This isn't true. A lot of those players argue with proponents of pure CEs, and call pure SEs better, and as such get mistaken for supporters of pure SE, but the only such player I know who actually is a pure SE diehard that hates financial is Obsolete. (Mutineer would make two if he still came here.) The rest of them use hybrids and respect financial, even if some of them don't see it as top tier.

Basically their skill at Civ4 is inversely proportional to their skill at debating and they keep sending the wrong messages all the time, including when it comes to economies.

I can't stand anarchy, so I like spiritual

Imperalistic...... I'm a warmonger o(∩_∩)o...... Though many players consider it as a weak trait. The cheaper settlers and GGs could really build up a large empire for me.

Organized for the second place - courthouses and cheaper civics could really cut down the upkeep for a large empire a lot.

Expansive for the third place - making the newly conquered cities grow's a really important thing.



Didn't like the aggresive trait much, though it can let my axeman get shock promotion with 3xp and pickman formation for 5xp. Cheaper barracks could only help in ancient era as the the barracks itself's cheap enough for later era. I alway promote my melees in CR line and Gunpowders in Drill line.

Protective won't help much in early era.......

Financial's too good, and I didn't want a op trait.

I usually build a ton of wonders, so I chose Industrious

Welcome to the Forums Wilhelm I. :beer:

Hm, itd be interesting to see if there was any correlation between the difficulty levels people played and what traits they liked.

It is interesting as certain. Why do we find so much emphasis in the financial trait? Because the vast mayority of civ players are middle level strategists (warlord to monarch/emperor); financial being the most easy, less strategic, trait to use. On the other hand, any player arguing that protective or imperialistic traits are weak should really go up a couple of levels of difficulty. They are certainly underestimating big time their skills in the game, thus having some aspects really easy to deal with (invasions, expansion, wonder building.. etc).

Anyhow, financial is a middle trait in my opinion. Good, strong, especially in the clasical to renaissance era, afterwards it's bonnus becomes marginal (once I made the count and it added 10% to my total comerce.. of course it's nice but not "overpowered" or "awesome" as many claim). In many terrains it's goodness is easily reduced, when you canot build cottages in tundra or ice terrain; compared to SE where all you need are good food resources, and these come along at any latitud (sea food, deer in terrain types where cottages are much difficult).

You should also ask if favourite traits also depend on game speed. All units related traits will be much better considered in slower speeds. Even marathon has a settlers cost of 300 h, not proportional with other units costs; great deal for imperialistic.. is it not?

Anyhow, financial is a middle trait in my opinion. Good, strong, especially in the clasical to renaissance era, afterwards it's bonnus becomes marginal (once I made the count and it added 10% to my total comerce.. of course it's nice but not "overpowered" or "awesome" as many claim).

That's like saying praetorians are ok, but not overpowered because they still get destroyed by rifles. The classical to renaissance era is the most important in the game. Teching well in that era can give you an advantage that can last the rest of the game.

That's like saying praetorians are ok, but not overpowered because they still get destroyed by rifles.

Not really, I am still comparing financial with other traits all along the game. Of course imperialistic is much more usable in the ancient age when you are founding cities and grabbing land/resources; organized does nothing in the ancient age (maybe one or another lighthouse.. ) and it begins to have power in the middle ages, truly great in modern times.

The classical to renaissance era is the most important in the game. Teching well in that era can give you an advantage that can last the rest of the game.

I simply don't see this as is.

I simply don't see this as is.

Really? I have to agree with BalbanesBeoulve, the game is almost always won or lost in that era. I emerge from it either in a dominant position or scrambling to eke out a victory.

All units related traits will be much better considered in slower speeds.

http://img237.imageshack.us/img237/3439/laughingelfmanpl5.jpg

On slower speeds, it's easier to win a war with a big army you've been building, since it's harder for your opponent to muster a counter-force. As such, unit boosting traits are less necessary on slower speeds.

Charismatic. It helps greatly in raising the happy cap in the early eras, and the military advantage is also useful. All in all, a nice versatile trait which helps with whatever you're doing.

Financial, very easy to manage.

I agree that difficulty shifts things around a little. I think it's most apparent with the comparison between FIN and ORG.
First, maintenance is slightly more expensive on higher levels, second you are under pressure to prioritise production over economy (there's a much shorter time window for grabbing land peacefully, adequate defense requires more units, wonder races require more focus).

And this is just looking at 'money' traits that are directly comparable. Around Monarch, my budget constrains my expansion so FIN or ORG are very helpful (early on, FIN can mean an additional 25% income... operating close to the limit that can be the difference between total collapse and continuing the land grab while slowly teching something that will get one out of maintenance hell).
At Immortal, beating an AI to decent spots (or boxing them in outright) becomes a larger expansion concern than my finances, meaning IMP and possibly CRE (I greatly dislike the trait myself) become more relevant for adequate expansion.

Industrial is very sensitive to difficulty as well, but it can go in either direction. 'I build all wonders anyway, so it's quite good' can become either 'vital to reliably execute my chosen strategy' or 'useless because wonders aren't worth the bother'.

***

I voted for Financial because of its impact as well as usefulness; it makes cottages desirable early on and in the late game even without a dedicated CE setup.

http://img237.imageshack.us/img237/3439/laughingelfmanpl5.jpg


NO. THAT EVIL THING IS NOT SUPPOSED TO EXIST.

Anyway, the poll has Creative doing very well but I haven't seen many posters talking about it.

Financial is the best trait, IMO. Technology is the way to go, and Financial is the engine.

http://img237.imageshack.us/img237/3439/laughingelfmanpl5.jpg

On slower speeds, it's easier to win a war with a big army you've been building, since it's harder for your opponent to muster a counter-force. As such, unit boosting traits are less necessary on slower speeds.

Any level and/or speed one plays in it will be rather difficult to find in this forum an argument more self contradictory as the above mentioned.

"On slower speeds, it's easier to win a war with a big army you've been building, since it's harder for your opponent to muster a counter-force." Checked!! You will regularly find big armies (many units in play), making their pros and contras matter in a high scale

"As such, unit boosting traits are less necessary on slower speeds." Fail to see the reasoning behind it

I didn't include an explanation to the fact that slower speeds favor units (and any and everything you can come up with them, is related to them) because I thought it was already obvious. As slower speeds allow more and more units than faster ones, anything relevant to them is enhanced. Moreover, there is a second aspect over this, slower speeds are more static in terms of technological advance, city growth, etc; so unit movement isn't so conditioned to the overall advancement going on in the game. This allows a better, more strategic, long term use of units; again making them more relevant than in faster speeds, were once your spy gets into that foreign city the big scenario could have changed drastically.

If I had to choose a single trait, it'd probably be either Charismatic or Philosophical.

But considering that traits come in pairs and can work together (as well as with uniques), I also love Aggressive and Creative.

For my money, Charismatic is the best all-around trait. Most people like it for the military aspect, but I tend more toward a builder style, and I like it mostly for the +1 happiness. Having a higher happiness cap in every city, all game long, is powerful enough on its own. To me, the faster military promotions are just gravy.

But regardless of whether you prefer the military or civic applications, to me Charismatic is the most useful because it provides bonuses to both.

http://img237.imageshack.us/img237/3439/laughingelfmanpl5.jpg

On slower speeds, it's easier to win a war with a big army you've been building, since it's harder for your opponent to muster a counter-force. As such, unit boosting traits are less necessary on slower speeds.

Dude, you're causing people damage with that. Also, I don't wish having knowledge of what that show was actually like on anyone (or is this a snippet from the game where zelda is the main character?). Anyway, you're practically assaulting us mentally :(.

As for the non-picture argument, I don't see it. You want well-promoted units regardless. If anything, on faster speeds faster techers obsolete massed well-promoted units faster...making traits that help empower units well suited to slower speeds.

there more time for war at slower speeds so each unit becomes more valuable. So its quality gets more significant.

Spiritual, with Charismatic a very close second. I'm at peace as much as is possible, but when I go to War...
I go to War. lol

Financial is the best trait, IMO. Technology is the way to go, and Financial is the engine.

Financial's the way to go!

I voted industrius, charismatic coming in second.
Go De Gaulle

Spiritual is a close second to Industrious.

My favorite leaders, are Genghis Khan, Ramses II and Montezuma. Lately mostly Ramses.
Though I did have a good time playing w/ Carthage (Hannibal).
Mostly the evillish-bastids I guess :-)

Personally I think the Anarchy penalty in general is too great.
Instead something like +X unhappiness & a commerce penalty for 1 or 2 (3?) turns.
(Which might take out some of a cities workers) Would be much more acceptable.
Instead of losing all production across the board for 2 turns.

Instead of losing all production across the board for 2 turns.

Two turns? Play marathon, and then try five turns on the up end. Though, I don't think the penalty is too great myself. It's supposed to hurt to be a civic switching nut - unless you're spiritual.

Dude, you're causing people damage with that. Also, I don't wish having knowledge of what that show was actually like on anyone (or is this a snippet from the game where zelda is the main character?). Anyway, you're practically assaulting us mentally :(.

Who is that sinister laughting dwarf anyways? Luckily not well known around here..

Who is that sinister laughting dwarf anyways? Luckily not well known around here..

It's Link, from some super crappy mid 90s games on an ill conceived, short lived platform, the CDI.

http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=ZWwU1_6mK_M

It's Link, from some super crappy mid 90s games on an ill conceived, short lived platform, the CDI.

http://ca.youtube.com/watch?v=ZWwU1_6mK_M

Don't forget that those games weren't made by Nintendo...the actual Nintendo made Zelda games are considered some of the best in gaming. ;)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Legend_of_Zelda_%28series%29

I myself am a great fan of the series. (The Wind Waker FTW!)

I voted Industrious, though Charismatic is a close 2nd and Financial/Philosophical tie for an closer 3rd. My Golden Ages typically cover my anarchy switches, so I'd say Spriritual is my least favorite trait. Protective and Imperialistic go along with Spiritual as my least favorite traits, and Aggressive, Expansive, Organized and Creative are just kind of okay to me. BTW, I play on Prince/Monarch difficulty on Normal/Quick speeds.

My vote goes to Creative.
The free extra :culture: in every city is so nice.

My vote goes to Creative.
The free extra :culture: in every city is so nice.

Welcome to CivFanatics! :)

Welcome to CivFanatics! :)Thank you. :D

creative is the best for the early part of game...good way to secure resources

creative trait is the best one for early part of game.....great way to secure resources

Welcome to the Forums nigelle. :beer:

Financial is the best trait and aggressive second best. So Ragnar is not a bad choice.

Spiritual ftw

Spiritual, come ON, has anyone done the math on how much $$ is saved by no anarchy? Switching Civics a lowly five (5) times means ten (10) turns of non-cash-and-production-losing anarchy per game...

Spiritual, come ON, has anyone done the math on how much $$ is saved by no anarchy? Switching Civics a lowly five (5) times means ten (10) turns of non-cash-and-production-losing anarchy per game...

On the other hand, let's say Financial raises your income by 5% - a fair guess, I'd say, and maybe even a conservative one. 5% per turn - in 20 turns, you've gained a full turn worth of income. In 200 turns, you're looking at saving as much money as those five civic switches (though, I don't know what the math would be for your increasing economy through the game, but you get the idea). Add to that golden ages timed to for your big switches and... Well, the money lost can be mitigated.

Personally, Spiritual is top tier for me. I just think it's "save you in a pinch" is its real draw, and the money saved is just a minor perk, along with the "never have to plan to save a great person for a civic switch."

Golden Age freedom is just another major perk, for the Gandhi-warmonger in us all :p

Heh, if the moon is full I usually start up a game as Gandhi and call myself WarGandhi, going for a conquest victory. Glad I'm not the only one ;)

Then we are officially buddies; I choose India to wage war, not peace. (I like those GPP's), and I make no apologies. Holy Crap Fast Workers, along with quick V&Th later on, when I'm leagues ahead in development...
And instant Rifles to repel any attack? Hello? lmao

And don't even get me started on Boudecia...

I voted organized. Permenant benefit of reduced civic cost as you all know.

But the double speed courthouses and lighthouses are clutch. Because you often need these in conqured and coastal cities, which don't start out producing much. I used to think Industrious was better because forges help you create everything else that you might need. But around the time you have 6+ cities you need those courthouses fast. They prevent your economy from crashing faster than marketplaces.

And then, centuries later, factories double speed - just amazing. I used to save a GP or two just to have a golden age when it was time to industrialize my Civ, but no need with organized.

Organized is multi-faceted. I thought it was the worst when I first started playing just because it seemed random and incohesive.

But honestly I think all the traits are good. Some are more fun than others. Protective isn't very fun but when you play with it, you notice it, and it's clutch.

I think expansive is under-rated on this thread. My cities all get :p after factories and expansive just helps so much for those 100 years post industrialism pre medicine. Mehmed as the ottomons, with his traits and UB is great for this time period.

I think aggresive is over-rated. It's not bad, but it's not great. In the single player game techs are much more important than promotions.

Imperialist is kind of weak, but on a crowded continent it can be a great way to box in a neihbor.

I defenetly understand the case as financial being the best though.

Correction - I feel dumb now saying aggresive was over-rated as it has less than 2% of the votes.

And philosphical is the funnest trait.

Well I didn't vote for what I thought was the best, I voted for my *FAVORITE* ;-)

Yeah Industrious is a fun trait. FDR is a fun leader, also because he's the only one shown smoking in the game.

I like Spritual too. It used to be favorite. Both Industrious and Spirtual used to be my favorites.

I disagree about the penalty for switching civics being too much. Without it, spirtual is underpowered and Cristo Redeemer is not very deseriable.

Lord knows I smoke a lot when playing this game :yuck: So many hard desicions to make, so many citizens depend on my desicions, it's just stressful sometimes being an imortal ruler.

you're all wrong. i am right. and i am not willing to share my answer :lol:

Lord knows I smoke a lot when playing this game :yuck: So many hard desicions to make, so many citizens depend on my desicions, it's just stressful sometimes being an imortal ruler.

do a line of K. you will never be so involved in a civ game in your life. and for the life of you, you will have no idea what you did, but the following day, when u load up your last save game, your civ will be AWESOME. that was quite fun.

For every game in general, I actually prefer Creative, it just makes the game so much easier and uncomplicated. Spiritual does this aswell, so I kinda like playing Hatty when I need to relax.

vote is for Creative, even though some games you'd prefer another trait, there are most of the games where you'd prefer to have this trait.

Imperialistic...twice as many GGs sounds good to me.

I just got off of a game playing as Qin Shi Haung. I was running Vassalage and Theocracy w/ Barracks in all of my cities. My Ko-Chu-No's had 4 promotions in my crusade against the Mongols. I also like Tokagawa's Agg/Pro mix, since i'm a warmongerer. Nice to have units gunpowder units that can capture a city and still defend it.

I'm going to try WarGandhi sometime over break.

So seems the three best leaders are

1. Huayna Capac
2. Willem van Oranje
3. Hannibal

:D

So seems the three best leaders are

1. Huayna Capac
2. Willem van Oranje
3. Hannibal

:D

maybe in your opinion (ok, alot of people think those are the top 3)

maybe in your opinion (ok, alot of people think those are the top 3)

No, not my opinion, its the polls ;)

Financial is the best especially if you have several squares for your cities that are on the water. The extra money can really speed up the teching in the early game and in the later game you can support a huge military.

Elizabeth is the best leader in my opinion.

I voted Creative (extremely useful not to have to beeline Stonehenge), but after seeing the figures, Financial doesn't surprise me. Hannibal seems to channel his money into research, so I always steam ahead when I'm playing him.

So it would seem, in order to balance Financial some type of cap for the maximum :commerce: that can be gained - either per city or empire total.

Any thoughts? I was thinking +9 max per city. But will need some SDK work for testing I think - doubt it can be accomplished cleanl with just Python.

It would be a hideously ugly way to do it. Also, I don't think it's needed... imo, it is the best trait by a narrow margin, but not overpowered. I think taking away half-priced banks was the correct move, any more isn't necessary.

Not that narrow.
It is First AND Second Place, since the votes have it nearly equal to the other top contenders, 57 ~= ( 32 + 32 ). Anyways I periodically try alternate rules, and will get around to the SDK at some point, where I can try a few others.

After playing more at higher levels I'd like to change my vote to either aggressive or expansive. I really like expansive now, though aggressive allows for the ever-interesting 3rd promotion on units. This means anti-mounted grenadiers or units that can be promoted to amphibious with just 2 promos.

I still value charismatic highly though.

So it would seem, in order to balance Financial some type of cap for the maximum :commerce: that can be gained - either per city or empire total.

Any thoughts? I was thinking +9 max per city. But will need some SDK work for testing I think - doubt it can be accomplished cleanl with just Python.

Dude, you are pissing out of the bucket... Being the most voted doesn't make it better, even less overpowered. I expected it to be as is the easiest trait to use, thus being voted by an understandable majority..
Truly, I would like to see the bank bonnus back, or some sort of porduction bonnus for markets maybe is more reasonable (+50% production). Though in the hardest levels any aditional bonnus to the AI might turn out an exageration.