...Industrious/Financial, Philosophical/Financial and Aggressive/Charismatic are allowed? They're just as if not more forbidden, IMO.

I think either Japan or Arabia deserves to get a Philosophical/Industrious leader.

Perhaps Meiji for Japan?

Because it's not so much having traits that compliment each other, as two traits that compound each other in a specific area that the developers didn't want to do.

It's inarguable that a GP farm is necessary to get the most GP in a game. Sure, you can have GP producing cities in parallel in the early game, but soon enough they outstrip each other.

There are two main ways to have a GP farm. A wonder farm and a specialist farm. Editorial: Most people don't really like doing a wonder farm because they are against the idea of having mixed types of GP popping up. But, with BtS, it really benefits you to have a mixed bag of GP because they all have strong uses.
Anyway, what happens when you put a wonder farm and a specialist farm together in the same city? Plus you build Parthenon and run Pacifism.

Mad GP popping out like rabbits. ;)

Wodan

If Ind/Phi were available I'd use it almost exclusively. The Dev Team could have found a way to balance it somehow... (i.e. very weak UB/No UU/start with no warrior/scout only settler) I don't think it's happening though man. I already asked about this trait combo. Here's to hoping they give us one more expansion pack though.

Because it would break the game.

@EweezE : I hope they focus on CIV 5, and that it takes the game into unknown territory. Off the top of my head:
Able to zoom into any Tile so that tile takes up the whole screen.
Cities that you can see spread across the screen, with citizens going about tasks.
Some other mechanic aside from the BFC.


CIV IV is great, no doubt. But almost all the threads that discuss CIV V - primarily talk about 4 things.
Bring back feature X from CIV 1,2,3.
Fix/Change Feature Y in CIV IV
More Leaders/CIVs.
Better AI / Trade / Diplomacy.


Thats a pretty limited view imho. All of that could fairly easily be done with a mod or expansion pack. I truely hope Firaxis is focused on something far more grand than that.

@ OP: As Geny [FP] says, it would definitely break the game in countless ways.

@EweezE : I hope they focus on CIV 5, and that it takes the game into unknown territory. Off the top of my head:
Able to zoom into any Tile so that tile takes up the whole screen.
Cities that you can see spread across the screen, with citizens going about tasks.
Some other mechanic aside from the BFC.


CIV IV is great, no doubt. But almost all the threads that discuss CIV V - primarily talk about 4 things.
Bring back feature X from CIV 1,2,3.
Fix/Change Feature Y in CIV IV
More Leaders/CIVs.
Better AI / Trade / Diplomacy.


Thats a pretty limited view imho. All of that could fairly easily be done with a mod or expansion pack. I truely hope Firaxis is focused on something far more grand than that.

I see what you're saying and agree. But if they were inclined to do one more expansion pack, surely it wouldn't involve the whole Dev Team. I mean if all they were doing was filling in the Civs with new leaders and adding new Civs. Maybe a few changes that they've all agreed on from their own custom games.. idk what would be in the pack. I just know I'd buy it :D.


on topic: The closest thing we are going to get to Ind/Phi is playing as a Philosophical leader and hooking up marble/stone.

;6970631']Because it would break the game.

How? I don't see it.

I can GE rush Shwedagon Paya and use Pacifism as a Industrious leader at like turn 100, so does that break the game too?

@ NT: Other civics compliment each other, or they counter each other and open up options in different directions. The IND/PHI traits specifically compound each other. IND is a highly valued trait, PHI is a highly valued trait. I believe CHA and FIN are highly valued as well. Other traits available tend to be of a more restricted/narrow use/value.

When you mix two highly valued traits together, they make an overwhelming combination that doesn't even come close to others in terms of value and application.

How? I don't see it.

I can GE rush Shwedagon Paya and use Pacifism as a Industrious leader at like turn 100, so does that break the game too?

The Phi trait means that you get your first GP twice as fast. That's the equivalent of building every wonder twice.

How? I don't see it.

I can GE rush Shwedagon Paya and use Pacifism as a Industrious leader at like turn 100, so does that break the game too?

Lets see:

You built the very expensive pyramids and/or teched metal casting and ran an engineer for a while.

You researched Aesthetics.

You are paying double in upkeep for every unit you produce (there abouts).

You burned your first GE on a Wonder and now all subsequent GPeople will take longer to get.

You had to actually have a religion in the city where you are building the wonders; hopefully a neighbor got one 'cause I doubt you did all the above and still managed to found a religion.

OR

You are IND/PHI and can ignore all the above in order to get the same benefit...

If Ind/Phi were available I'd use it almost exclusively. The Dev Team could have found a way to balance it somehow... (i.e. very weak UB/No UU/start with no warrior/scout only settler) I don't think it's happening though man. I already asked about this trait combo. Here's to hoping they give us one more expansion pack though.

I don't find this to be anywhere near a satisfactory solution. I think it is a bad idea to give overpowered trait combos and justify them by giving the civs poor UUs and UBs. Firstly, what would happen when you have unrestricted leaders? Everyone would cherry pick the uber trait comobos with the best UUs and UBs. IMO the traits themselves are all fairly balanced. When I pick civs/leaders these days I typically consider the strengths of each civ (UB, UU and starting techs) far more than their traits.

Secondly, even with no UU and no UB whatsoever the Phi/Ind trait combo is potentially overpowered. (This would be an exception to my believing the traits are all balanced).

Having a civ start with no warrior or scout is a pretty weird suggestion IMO.

on topic: The closest thing we are going to get to Ind/Phi is playing as a Philosophical leader and hooking up marble/stone.

Or Augustus with Parthenon & forum (even better with marble/stone).

What's so great about fin/ind?

Financial means you get the tech early and industrious means you can build the wonder while everyone else is still researching the prerequisite tech. Its why I hate the Inca so very very much.

Financial means you get the tech early and industrious means you can build the wonder while everyone else is still researching the prerequisite tech. Its why I hate the Inca so very very much.

Yeah, that, and with the great UU, Inca is WAY overpowered. I'm really, really surprised they let it go by beta testing. :confused:

Inca really is overpowered.
They're basically Cre/Fin/Ind.
Fast wonders, great economy, and every city gets +2 culture per turn because of your granaries.

I say make a phi/ind leader, but give him to a civ that has a lame UU and UB.
Like Mongolia.

I don't care about overpowering or not. After all, we're playing mostly a SP game, and Civ is all about getting the most of your abilities in the correct situation.

Even if Quechuas rocks more often, I'm sure than Navy Seals are overpowered in other situations :)

I think the Ai with ind/phil would be silly. The AI knows how to make good GP farms and build wonders already. That would make one crazy GP farm. I am guessing the Ai would continually be in a golden age each lasting 12 turns with the right wonder.

I dont see why people would want to play a game if they only played with one civ that they knew would over power the AI every time. Wheres the challenge??

On a multiplayer game these combo would simply be too overpowering for one player.

A good player will learn to adapt his game for any leader.

For me i cant remember last time i played the Roman. I still think it should have been a strength 7 pret. Lets not go back to that debate though. :mischief:

I have some words for Nintendo:

Ind/Phi OCC :faint:

I think the Ai with ind/phil would be silly. The AI knows how to make good GP farms and build wonders already. That would make one crazy GP farm. I am guessing the Ai would continually be in a golden age each lasting 12 turns with the right wonder.

I dont see why people would want to play a game if they only played with one civ that they knew would over power the AI every time. Wheres the challenge??

On a multiplayer game these combo would simply be too overpowering for one player.

A good player will learn to adapt his game for any leader.

For me i cant remember last time i played the Roman. I still think it should have been a strength 7 pret. Lets not go back to that debate though. :mischief:

I only play with certain leaders because I can only play certain strategies.
In fact, I don't play as anyone who isn't either Fin or Phi, really.
I just don't really know how to play as the other leaders right. Which sucks because I'd like to learn to get good at China, Egypt, Rome, and... >.> Napoleon or De Gaulle of France.

maybe i miss something but fin/phi is pretty bad combo in my opinion.

Fin means lots of cottage to exploit is fully potential and Phi means a lot of farms.
Even if its 2 very good traits, there is no synergy between them in a standard game.
Anyway i agree that Phi/Ind would be a bit overpowered, but not really more than Agr/Chm or some other combo. It would depends on this Civ UB and UU,
coupled with crappy two of them it would be correct, as the indian i think.

( my 2 cents of course ^^ sry for indian lovers )

maybe i miss something but fin/phi is pretty bad combo in my opinion.

Fin means lots of cottage to exploit is fully potential and Phi means a lot of farms.
Even if its 2 very good traits, there is no synergy between them in a standard game.


That could be the case if riverside cottages where the only way to benefit from financial, but there is all those coastal tiles (with Colossus literally all water tiles), riverside windmills, and a lot of other things later in the game.

I also don't use farm-everywhere with Philosophical. They get a lot of GPs and you eventually hit the point where you need too many GP points for those farms to make much of a difference anywhere but in the GP farm city. I find Philosophical perfect for a nice SE/CE hybrid economy.

Financial means you get the tech early and industrious means you can build the wonder while everyone else is still researching the prerequisite tech. Its why I hate the Inca so very very much.

Eh, I didn't say it wasn't a good combo, but it doesn't have the crazy synergy of the other ones. Building wonders fast = good. Add to that more money = good and you have a good combo. But as for them working together? If you're getting the tech early, you likely won't need Industrious to build it. The combo is good, but where fin/org, ind/phil, and agg/cha sort of play off each other and amplify their notable strengths,

Oh, and the Incans rock because of good traits, cheesy UU, good UB... Their trait combo alone doesn't do it. You could have Darius of the Khmer and he'd still rock.

I only play with certain leaders because I can only play certain strategies.
In fact, I don't play as anyone who isn't either Fin or Phi, really.
I just don't really know how to play as the other leaders right. Which sucks because I'd like to learn to get good at China, Egypt, Rome, and... >.> Napoleon or De Gaulle of France.


The difference between financial and non is that you have to build cottages more early to allow your empire/ economy to grow. Either that or find a holy city early on and drop a great prophet in the city to build the shrine and spread the religion like crazy.

Personally i think there are lots of non financial civs to play. perhaps you should post a game on the forums that you have played to 1ad and get peoples opinion on where perhaps your going wrong. The forum is your oyster in terms of knowledge. You could also read through the walk through of games people post on this forum. The information is out there!!

I don't find this to be anywhere near a satisfactory solution. I think it is a bad idea to give overpowered trait combos and justify them by giving the civs poor UUs and UBs. Firstly, what would happen when you have unrestricted leaders? Everyone would cherry pick the uber trait comobos with the best UUs and UBs...

Well, they allowed Agg/Char. IMO Phi/Ind is the same degree of overpowering but in a different area. If I use unrestricted leaders and combine Boudica with Augustus Caesar. Now I have Level 2 units that need 25% less XP to promote and combine it with Iron Working rushed Praetorians. You can win the game before the AD era.

Besides, you can easily edit into the XML a leader that uses Phi/Ind traits. Go to the customization forum.

I only play with certain leaders because I can only play certain strategies.
In fact, I don't play as anyone who isn't either Fin or Phi, really.
I just don't really know how to play as the other leaders right. Which sucks because I'd like to learn to get good at China, Egypt, Rome, and... >.> Napoleon or De Gaulle of France.

You should try a REX/warmonger game as an Organized leader (eg. Julius Caesar). You can focus on production rather than commerce early on and, provided you get COL early enough, your economy will hold up just fine. You can lay down cottages once the initial land grab is over, and play your normal game from there. Or conquer the world with Praets ;)

They're basically Cre/Fin/Ind.
Fast wonders, great economy, and every city gets +2 culture per turn because of your granaries.
Not really -- that's like claiming getting a discount on lighthouses is basically having the organized trait. :p The most important parts of creative are the fast first border pop and the huge amount of early hammers it saves you (no monument, half-price library).

Before BTS was released I always believed the 3 combinations that wouldn't be in the Expansion would be Fin/Org, Agg/Cha & Ind/Phil because of obviousl reasons, but in the end it was Prot/Org & Cha/Cre that weren't included in BTS probably because of their negative synergy.

I can see Agg/Cha being included, even with all that military power, you need an economy to pay for those units.

Fin/Org has always been powerful since Vanilla Civ with Washington... you can almost play anyway and that combination will assist you greatly.

I think Ind/Phil is a level above both Agg/Cha & Fin/Org is because of Lightbulbing, Build a wonder, Lightbulb the GP to give you acces to build another wonde that will speed up your next GP to lightbulb another tech that gives you access to another wonder. It's a cycle where you will always be at an advantage... eventually this cycle will slow down but by then you'll be so far ahead, you've already won the game with the exception where some rushes while you're wonder spamming.

btw I heard from somewhere that they tested this combination before Civ 4 Vanila was released and they decided to exclude it from the game because it was overpowered, I dunno who was orignally given this combination though, I can only think fo Gandhi because he was originally Spi/Ind in Vanilla then switched to Spi/Phil in WL but can you imagine Ind/Phil with Fast Workers, that's beyond overpowered lmao.

Because it's not so much having traits that compliment each other, as two traits that compound each other in a specific area that the developers didn't want to do.

It's inarguable that a GP farm is necessary to get the most GP in a game. Sure, you can have GP producing cities in parallel in the early game, but soon enough they outstrip each other.

There are two main ways to have a GP farm. A wonder farm and a specialist farm. Editorial: Most people don't really like doing a wonder farm because they are against the idea of having mixed types of GP popping up. But, with BtS, it really benefits you to have a mixed bag of GP because they all have strong uses.
Anyway, what happens when you put a wonder farm and a specialist farm together in the same city? Plus you build Parthenon and run Pacifism.

Mad GP popping out like rabbits. ;)

Wodan

Well what about EXp/CHa. AFAIK only washington has it. They definantly compound one another in the form of giant cities in teh end game ( more end game GP ) And the ability to play the game pretty much no matter how horrid your start is.

Yes EXP is situational but CHA is not, not unless you are in an all tundra start area that is heh. ANd together the SItuational... is removed from EXP. This start alows you to build larger faster, as well as make huge GP farms as soon as you research media. Not to mention how this trait combo allows you to over come some of the worst starting positions the game throws at you.. to being able to completly exploit the really awesome starts. IMO this is the leader to take if you want the best garuantee that your game is going to go well.

I admit I never tried a Wonder rush, so maybe that would definantly be better than how well exp and cha work together. Closet thing I do to a gp farm, is a early rush to get 3 great scientist and build their special buildings. And of coarse the end game Great engineer and Great Artist farm. But a gp from 4000 bc to 2050 AD.. can't get myself to do it heh.. is it really all that?

Well what about Exp/CHa. AFAIK only washington has it. They definantly compound one another in the form of giant cities in teh end game ( more end game GP ) And the ability to play the game pretty much no matter how horrid your start is.
Having 1 or 2 extra pop per city is a benefit, sure, and that benefit scales with the size of your empire (which Ind/Phi does not), but the benefit is nevertheless additive, not multiplicative.

I admit I never tried a Wonder rush, so maybe that would definantly be better than how well exp and cha work together. Closet thing I do to a gp farm, is a early rush to get 3 great scientist and build their special buildings. And of coarse the end game Great engineer and Great Artist farm. But a gp from 4000 bc to 2050 AD.. can't get myself to do it heh.. is it really all that?
If you're building 3 "GP Farms" then you're building zero GP Farms. A GP Farm, by definition, is only one city.

The way the National Epic works, and the way GPP cost progression scales upward the more GP you generate, only one GP Farm is viable.

Wodan

The main difference I see between Agg/Char and Ind/Phi is that Civ has many things that limit fast lateral expansion (city, unit upkeep) and so while it is strong, you won't be able to take over the world, just raze/pilliage. However for a hypothetical Ind/Phi all of the growth is vertical with many wonders (and fast forges) being produced in a few (maybe even one) cities. All these wonders will not only alow for explosive growth (settling Great priests/engineers/Merchants to build faster wonders to make more great priests/engineers), but it also gives extra defense via high culture, AND makes OCC and Culture victories Much,Much easier.

The way the National Epic works, and the way GPP cost progression scales upward the more GP you generate, only one GP Farm is viable.

I believe that someone else has done the number crunching (i think it was a strategy article), and a second GP farm, even producing 1/3rd the GPP of the main one still provides useful benefits. I personally use this method, with the second farm producing pure specialists (no/low pollution) - while the first one is hopelessly polluted from all the wonders.

It is the 3rd GP farm that gets pretty iffy.

I believe that someone else has done the number crunching (i think it was a strategy article), and a second GP farm, even producing 1/3rd the GPP of the main one still provides useful benefits.
I don't doubt that it does.

However, that doesn't say anything about the relation of the benefit to the alternative.

e.g., if I have $1000 in a bank account drawing 5% interest, and I take $100 and put it in an account at 3.5%, was it a good decision? From a purely numerical standpoint, no. But what you're saying here is "the 3.5% account provided useful benefits". ;)

Of course, having 2 cities allows you to fine tune each city to producing different types of GP. Nevertheless, you'll still have fewer. And, keep in mind we're talking Ind/Phi here anyway, with a GP Farm which is both a wonder farm and a specialist farm, thus you're not fine tuning anyway and you're playing the "GP lottery". This on the theory that ANY GP you can make use of because BtS really gave very strong benefits for all the different types, and filling in with 5-6 golden ages.

Wodan

I don't think Phi/Ind is not in the game because it's overpowered. That would mean, if I'm philosophical and have stone and/or marble near my starting city I am totally overpowered (iirc industrious only gives you +50% wonder building and stone/marble/copper/gold give you +100%).

I don't think Phi/Ind is not in the game because it's overpowered. That would mean, if I'm philosophical and have stone and/or marble near my starting city I am totally overpowered (iirc industrious only gives you +50% wonder building and stone/marble/copper/gold give you +100%).
The stone/marble/copper benefit only helps on limited #s of wonders, and different ones at that. i.e./e.g., if stone worked on ALL wonders, you might have a point.

Anyway, it's additive. If you were doing a wonder strategy, it would obviously be a good idea to seek out and establish early cities near the resources.

Wodan

If you're building 3 "GP Farms" then you're building zero GP Farms. A GP Farm, by definition, is only one city.

The way the National Epic works, and the way GPP cost progression scales upward the more GP you generate, only one GP Farm is viable.


I'm not sure thats true, I did some preliminary math, and so long as your other "GP Cities" are producing ~1/2 as many GPP as the GP Farm they will still be able to output GP's. I believe it will work even at 1/3rd, there is a cutoff somewhere between 1/4 and 1/10th - that I didn't bother doing a proof for.

I'm not sure thats true, I did some preliminary math, and so long as your other "GP Cities" are producing ~1/2 as many GPP as the GP Farm they will still be able to output GP's. I believe it will work even at 1/3rd, there is a cutoff somewhere between 1/4 and 1/10th - that I didn't bother doing a proof for.
It's not a question of whether they "can produce GPs". Yes, in many cases they can. However, to do this you are running at a "lower interest rate" (to refer back to my earlier example).

Perhaps "viable" was the wrong word. Perhaps "optimal", as in "surpassing all others in quality" (from dictionary.com).

Wodan

@Wodan:
Your "definition" of GP farm is arguable at best. It presumes that a GP Farm must have the National Epic and thus is limited to one. That is like restricting your definition of a military city to one which has the Heroic Epic, which I think you'd agree is in error.

Your interest rate example assumes the ability to assign infinite number of specialists (as well as a zero-sum situation) which does not apply when dealing with specialists (although it does for Wonders). You also assume zero risk for both the 5% and the 3.5% accounts but usually a difference in rate implies a difference in risk. In the GP farm world this risk is that you will get an undesirable great person next. I am unsure how you get the 5-6 golden ages number, though I presume you are speaking in hyperbole. Even with random great people getting the necessary 4-5 unique great persons is quite difficult; more-so if you are using wonders for a portion of the GPP since there is generally a distinct bent toward the kinds of GP your wonders will be generating.

Sometimes quantity > quality (though in the Phi/Ind example that would probably not be the case generally), especially if you cannot generate a super-high number of great people due to food, civic or priority reasons. I would even go as far as to ignore the National Epic if I were to try and maintain specialist GP farms since there is probably no single farm that I want to produce more GP than the others, especially at the risk of getting a great artist.

@Wodan:
Your "definition" of GP farm presumes that a GP Farm must have the National Epic and thus is limited to one. That is like restricting your definition of a military city to one which has the Heroic Epic, which I think you'd agree is in error.
Not quite. You're calling a "GP Farm" the same as any old "specialist city", which is not what I would do, myself. What defines a GP Farm is the National Epic, because that's what leverages the resources and provides the most bonus.

Yes, you can have multiple cities making units. That does not mean that each of those cities is your "Military Academy city" or whatever you want to call it. Plain and simple, if you have a limited number of some mechanics (which you do), namely settled generals and the Heroic Epic, etc, then there's only one city which will provide the most bang for the buck.

You can have a second city make units, but those units will take longer (no HE), and will have less XP (no settled generals).

Your interest rate example assumes the ability to assign infinite number of specialists (as well as a zero-sum situation) which does not apply when dealing with specialists
You can assign more specialists than you can possibly feed, even if every tile in your city is a food resource. In real terms, this is equivalent, so YES it does apply.

You also assume zero risk for both the 5% and the 3.5% accounts but usually a difference in rate implies a difference in risk. In the GP farm world this risk is that you will get an undesirable great person next.
Up above in this thread I clearly said that giving a "mixed bag" of GP was part and parcel of the strategy. Some people call this playing the "GP lottery".

I do maintain that there is no such thing as an "undesirable GP," particularly with this strategy. As long as you don't tie the success of your whole game into getting one and only one type of GP (such as doing a multiple religion Shrine strategy), then this isn't an issue.

I am unsure how you get the 5-6 golden ages number, though I presume you are speaking in hyperbole. Even with random great people getting the necessary 4-5 unique great persons is quite difficult; more-so if you are using wonders for a portion of the GPP since there is generally a distinct bent toward the kinds of GP your wonders will be generating.
You are building as many wonders as possible, and thus you do not have a "bent". You already have a mixed type of wonders. And, you can (and should) change your specialists to bias your GP farm toward the type of GP you want at that particular moment.

I would even go as far as to ignore the National Epic if I were to try and maintain specialist GP farms since there is probably no single farm that I want to produce more GP than the others, especially at the risk of getting a great artist.
So you by choice are running multiple bank accounts at 3.5% interest, and voluntarily saying you choose not to have a 5% bank account. That's your choice; all I'm pointing out is that you could be getting 5% instead of only 3.5%.


Let's look at an example with real numbers. Say you have 3 cities. Each of them is running 4 of a different type of specialist. Plus, each of them has built 3 wonders providing that type of GPP. So, each city is generating 4*3 + 3*2 = 18 GPP/turn.

Say you have made 5 GP so far. City 1 will make a GP at 600, city 2 at 700, and city 3 at 800. Right? If all started at the same point (which isn't going to be true, but will give a basis for comparison), then the following are the # of turns for each city to make a GP:
City 1 = 600/18 = 33 turns
City 2 = 700/18 = 39 turns
City 3 = 800/18 = 44 turns

If you had put all that in the same city plus NE, that city would be making 108 GPP/turn. So, following are when the GP would arrive:
1st GP = 600/108 = 6 turns (6 turns)
2nd GP = 700/108 = 6 turns (12 turns)
3rd GP = 800/108 = 7 turns (19 turns)

And, if it waits until turn 44 (like the first example), it could make 3 additional, for a total of 6 GP. Not only that, but you get the GP much earlier (the first one on turn 6 instead of turn 33), which is huge benefit.

So, it's a matter of choosing between 3 GP where you get to pick the type of GP, versus 6 GP where you get a mixed bag.

In addition, the first example also has diminished specialization... i.e., you have to devote 3 cities to doing this. In the second example, those other 2 cities can be doing whatever you want, rather than running merchants, or engineers or whatever, if that is not ideal for that city. In other words, if the only reason that city would be running merchants would be to generate a Great Merchant, then that's a negative of the first example.

(The above both ignore Philo and Phi bonuses, which would be the same in either case.)

In my current game, I planned my "GP Farm" to be my National Park city, it's otherwise is unexceptional aside from having decent Production - only one excess Food tile (4). I would be better off, in pure gross numbers, to put the National Epic in my Capital, or even the recently acquired super-high-food capital I captured.

I'll still wind up with 9 bonus Specialists (9 Forested Tiles): ~48GPP w/ +100%, my other cities will produce ~35GPP and down from there.

Let's look at an example with real numbers. Say you have 3 cities. Each of them is running 4 of a different type of specialist. Plus, each of them has built 3 wonders providing that type of GPP. So, each city is generating 4*3 + 3*2 = 18 GPP/turn.

...

If you had put all that in the same city plus NE, that city would be making 108 GPP/turn. So, following are when the GP would arrive:
1st GP = 600/108 = 6 turns (6 turns)
2nd GP = 700/108 = 6 turns (12 turns)
3rd GP = 800/108 = 7 turns (19 turns)


How do I assign city 2 and city 3's citizens to be specialists in city 1? And how do I transfer specialist slots and wonders from city 2 and city 3 to city 1?

Not quite. You're calling a "GP Farm" the same as any old "specialist city", which is not what I would do, myself. What defines a GP Farm is the National Epic, because that's what leverages the resources and provides the most bonus.


Fair enough, but its equally valid to consider any city whose primary goal is to generate a great person a GP Farm. I may end up ranking my cities by how well they perform their function but appending "primary" or "secondary" to the description of a city doesn't change the base term.


You can assign more specialists than you can possibly feed, even if every tile in your city is a food resource. In real terms, this is equivalent, so YES it does apply.


You are still dealing with a finite situation whether the limiting factor is food or specialist slots.


Up above in this thread I clearly said that giving a "mixed bag" of GP was part and parcel of the strategy. Some people call this playing the "GP lottery".

I do maintain that there is no such thing as an "undesirable GP," particularly with this strategy. As long as you don't tie the success of your whole game into getting one and only one type of GP (such as doing a multiple religion Shrine strategy), then this isn't an issue.



So you by choice are running multiple bank accounts at 3.5% interest, and voluntarily saying you choose not to have a 5% bank account. That's your choice; all I'm pointing out is that you could be getting 5% instead of only 3.5%.


The sole purpose of a bank account is to provide a safe place to store your money and earn interest while others spend it. If we ignore risk and investment maximums then there would be no reason to invest in the 3.5 as opposed to the 5. However, since great people have their own unique benefits, as well as the fact that later great people have specific value compared to early great people (and - after each GP - cost more), comparing the mono-output bank account with a GP Farm is a stretch at best. Your pointing out the direct trade-off between a 3.5% and a 5% totally ignores any other factors present in the game.


Let's look at an example with real numbers. Say you have 3 cities. Each of them is running 4 of a different type of specialist. Plus, each of them has built 3 wonders providing that type of GPP. So, each city is generating 4*3 + 3*2 = 18 GPP/turn.

And, if it waits until turn 44 (like the first example), it could make 3 additional, for a total of 6 GP. Not only that, but you get the GP much earlier (the first one on turn 6 instead of turn 33), which is huge benefit.

So, it's a matter of choosing between 3 GP where you get to pick the type of GP, versus 6 GP where you get a mixed bag.


I agree that if the sole goal is to maximize the raw number of GP then what you are saying is correct. As for "undesirable" great people; when I am going for my fourth or fifth golden age (this happened in a recent game with an Industrious leader) there are three and four "undesirable" great people. No, my game didn't fall apart because I didn't get another golden age, but at that point in the same (state property, already had most of the world), the only real beneficial use of a great person was to launch a Mausoleum enhanced golden age and my wonder farm / gp farm and RNG wouldn't cooperate.

Whether burning the hammers and production/food tiles to run specialists for a really early great person is of a "huge" benefit is situational. There are possibly many alternative strategies that could prove stronger if you extend the time frame.


In addition, the first example also has diminished specialization... i.e., you have to devote 3 cities to doing this. In the second example, those other 2 cities can be doing whatever you want, rather than running merchants, or engineers or whatever, if that is not ideal for that city. In other words, if the only reason that city would be running merchants would be to generate a Great Merchant, then that's a negative of the first example.

(The above both ignore Philo and Phi bonuses, which would be the same in either case.)

The Philo/Phi/Parthenon bonuses actually make the multi-farm stronger since you get many of the benefits of the National Epic without actually having to deal with the pollution. By that I mean since the bonuses apply equally and to all cities if you compare a city affected by the non-National Epic items only with your super-farm with the National Epic the GP generated from bonuses comprises a larger portion of the total GP generated for the non-National Epic cities.

Also, you can consider the multi-city requirement to be a negative factor but without considering the game situation (do you have multiple food heavy cities; are you running caste system, why do you want a great person) you cannot know whether the final result overcomes that particular negative.

Yes, if you consider raw GP output as the only measured output then the super-GP farm wins every-time (and if you never care what kind of great person you get I guess you can restrict yourself in this way without harm). Otherwise, some games and situations scream for a specific GP, and some maps do not lend themselves to a super-GP farm and having a few smaller GP farms that can just work the limited specialist slots provided by buildings is better. In those games you trade raw numbers for more control so that each great person you get has more impact on the game, possibly to the point that when comparing a sequence of great people from the super-farm and the multi-farm system the effective value of those sequences is equal.

The powerful thing about Phi/Ind is that both methods are equally improved, since with Industrious even a lesser production city can generally build a wonder if you beeline and thus you can not only specialize the cities based upon which specialists they run but also with the appropriate Wonders.

How do I assign city 2 and city 3's citizens to be specialists in city 1? And how do I transfer specialist slots and wonders from city 2 and city 3 to city 1?
You mean to switch from the first example to the second example?

You would plan from game start to have a WE/SSE GP farm city, with plenty of food and hammers. Find the best spot for that city, and go from there.

You aren't "moving" specialists and wonders from one city to another... you simply build them in the same city rather than separate cities.

Wodan

Fair enough, but its equally valid to consider any city whose primary goal is to generate a great person a GP Farm. I may end up ranking my cities by how well they perform their function but appending "primary" or "secondary" to the description of a city doesn't change the base term.
Whatever... it's just semantics and nomenclature. Now that we understand, we're on the same page.

You are still dealing with a finite situation whether the limiting factor is food or specialist slots.
Example, please.

The sole purpose of a bank account is to provide a safe place to store your money and earn interest while others spend it. If we ignore risk and investment maximums then there would be no reason to invest in the 3.5 as opposed to the 5.
What "risk" is involved in GP production?

And, (except for the two you mention below, which I'll get to in a minute), what "investment maxims" are involved in GP production?

However, since great people have their own unique benefits, as well as the fact that later great people have specific value compared to early great people (and - after each GP - cost more), comparing the mono-output bank account with a GP Farm is a stretch at best. Your pointing out the direct trade-off between a 3.5% and a 5% totally ignores any other factors present in the game.
I didn't not ignore the ability to force a specific GP type. In fact I have discussed it plenty. I've admitted it is a negative of this strategy. If this strategy was purely positive, everybody would do it all the time. Instead, this strategy has some strong positives, but yes it has a negative or two.

We can discuss this negative in further detail if you like.

Bottom line, we're trading a 100% chance of a specific GP type for something ike a 70% chance while getting about *2 the total number of GP and getting them MUCH faster.

I agree that if the sole goal is to maximize the raw number of GP then what you are saying is correct. As for "undesirable" great people; when I am going for my fourth or fifth golden age (this happened in a recent game with an Industrious leader) there are three and four "undesirable" great people. No, my game didn't fall apart because I didn't get another golden age, but at that point in the same (state property, already had most of the world), the only real beneficial use of a great person was to launch a Mausoleum enhanced golden age and my wonder farm / gp farm and RNG wouldn't cooperate.
Sure, it's possible to get unlucky. With good planning that can be minimized.

With any strategy, it takes some skill and experience to truly perfect it, over the course of several games. While you bring up a good caution, it is something that can be compensated for. Otherwise, it is a bit unreasonable to expect it to work perfectly the first time around.

Whether burning the hammers and production/food tiles to run specialists for a really early great person is of a "huge" benefit is situational. There are possibly many alternative strategies that could prove stronger if you extend the time frame.
Are you honestly arguing that it is better to have GP later than earlier? And, you don't even have a strategy in mind? :confused:

The Philo/Phi/Parthenon bonuses actually make the multi-farm stronger since you get many of the benefits of the National Epic without actually having to deal with the pollution. By that I mean since the bonuses apply equally and to all cities if you compare a city affected by the non-National Epic items only with your super-farm with the National Epic the GP generated from bonuses comprises a larger portion of the total GP generated for the non-National Epic cities.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but you're saying that benefit X is a higher percentage of the net gain under scenario 1. Right?

Honestly, who cares about percentage of influence. Percentage is misleading because it actually grows if the net gain is less.

Also, you can consider the multi-city requirement to be a negative factor but without considering the game situation (do you have multiple food heavy cities; are you running caste system, why do you want a great person) you cannot know whether the final result overcomes that particular negative.
Of course.

Yes, if you consider raw GP output as the only measured output then the super-GP farm wins every-time (and if you never care what kind of great person you get I guess you can restrict yourself in this way without harm).
Please don't overlook that I did say you can fine tune your super-GP farm to some extent. You are not truly at the mercy of the lottery. You can and should switch the specialists you're running every time a GP is produced, to bias the lottery toward the GP type(s) you most desire at that particular moment.

The powerful thing about Phi/Ind is that both methods are equally improved, since with Industrious even a lesser production city can generally build a wonder if you beeline and thus you can not only specialize the cities based upon which specialists they run but also with the appropriate Wonders.
Sure, I agree with that.

Example, please.


For a given map, with corporations and all known technologies, their is a number that, if you controlled the entire map, farmed your entire city and ran caste system, represents the maximum amount of GP/Turn you could generate. This, by definition, is finite.


What "risk" is involved in GP production?


The risk scenario applies to your investment analogy, which I am glad you dropped in this round of responses. But anyway, with bank accounts there is a real risk that you could lose your deposit if the bank folds. The FDIC insures against this but only up to $100,0000 USD. Therefore, if you any money you invest about that amount in the 5% account is at risk of being lost. Choosing to invest that additional money in a 3.5% account becomes a valid choice since another factor (the risk) comes into play. This is analogous to the additional factors that come into play when choosing to spread out your GP production among multiple cities.


And, (except for the two you mention below, which I'll get to in a minute), what "investment maxims" are involved in GP production?


My statement was "investment maximums" - see above for why I brought it up.

I didn't not ignore the ability to force a specific GP type. In fact I have discussed it plenty. I've admitted it is a negative of this strategy. If this strategy was purely positive, everybody would do it all the time. Instead, this strategy has some strong positives, but yes it has a negative or two.


As does the multi-farm strategy, which is the whole point of the response since your responses and examples seemed to focus on using an example that, as presented, made anyone who would voluntarily choose multiple farms (or bank accounts) sound like an idiot.


Bottom line, we're trading a 100% chance of a specific GP type for something ike a 70% chance while getting about *2 the total number of GP and getting them MUCH faster.


Yes, again I agree with the math. But you seem to ignore any possible value derived from said control as well as ignoring the difficulty of achieving that level of control once large numbers of great people have been generated. In those situations where you really do care about the type having generated fewer great people early on, but making better use of them cause they fit into the overall strategy, is a benefit since the later ones are still fairly easy to achieve.


Are you honestly arguing that it is better to have GP later than earlier? And, you don't even have a strategy in mind? :confused:


Corporations are the most common situation where you need a specific type (especially an engineer which is very hard to get late game and more-so if you've already generated a lot of great people early on). Golden Ages are the viable alternative, especially if you run state property.


Correct me if I'm wrong, but you're saying that benefit X is a higher percentage of the net gain under scenario 1. Right?

Honestly, who cares about percentage of influence. Percentage is misleading because it actually grows if the net gain is less.


In this case that percentage difference means (I'm using logic instead of math so feel free to point out/prove any errors is said logic):

City A: Super GP Farm with National Epic
Cities B: Specialized GP Farms
Not Actual Numbers
Scenario 1 (No Bonuses): City A: 16 GP; Cities B: 10
Scenario 2 (Philosophical): City A: 19; Cities B: 15

My point is that given the additional GPP necessary for subsequent people and that I can quite conceivably run more total specialists and wonders in my multiple GP farm situation, that the non-National Epic bonuses make the raw great person generation less dis-favorable for the multiple GP farm situation while still retaining all the benefits of control.

I'm focusing more on theory here, and it is quite possible that a situation won't ever exist where the sequence of great people generated in "cities B" has a greater value than those in "city A". But to dismiss the possibility categorically is short-sighted.

You mean to switch from the first example to the second example?

You would plan from game start to have a WE/SSE GP farm city, with plenty of food and hammers. Find the best spot for that city, and go from there.

You aren't "moving" specialists and wonders from one city to another... you simply build them in the same city rather than separate cities.

Wodan

Assuming you can find such a city and that your other cities can keep you up in technology enough to actually compete for those wonders. The baseline food requirements for a building driven specialist economy requires much less and saves a hammer heavy city for key beeline wonders and/or military production.

In your examples you are moving them since you put all the raw GPP generation into one city and then multiply it. If you want to strictly limit yourself to caste system then this is doable but assuming all cities have identical buildings this is impossible. If you want to use wonders to make up the different then for every 2 specialists in the other cities (your example using 18 means you have 6 specialists in each city) you need 3 wonders (18 wonders). The Great Library and National Epic can be assumed so call it 13 other Wonders.

Also, your inclusion of SSE into your super-city description implies that you would include Oxford and Representation at some point (since they don't provide GPP) so those settled specialists generate beakers that are multiplied. I agree this is a point in favor of considering raw great people numbers are being primary but there are other uses for great people, especially as the game progresses and settling gets you less overall benefit.

It seems like Polobo and Wodan have differing play styles. I see the merit in both types of GP Farming (ie multi-city specialized GP vs. single city mixed GP). If you are looking to found a corporations (or many) and you like to grab as many golden ages as possible, then the multi-city approach is clearly your flava. If you're like me and settle most GPs after the Medieval Era, then the single city approach is perfect. Every single GP that pops out of that city is settled and adds to GP generation along with the other positive effects.

Great Merchants are ALWAYS valuable and remain so until the end of the game. I can always use a 4-5 thousand gold boost! Settling GS is never an bad thing (after all, with representation, they add 9 beakers not counting science building bonuses), GE remain relevant until the modern age where most wonders are either projects, or not buildings. Even then, they add to science and production if settled. Great Artists are wonderful for culture boosting or pushing back rival borders throughout the entire game and when running representation, gives a wonderful science boost, too.

Tonight I start a Phil/Prot game to test out the multi-city farming approach and see how it works for me.

Actually, I generally play like the situations described by Wodan; and in fact would suggest that my alternative is only valid in a small percentage of games. That it is uncommon does not make it invalid however.

The thing is, I really think the map has a large role to play in determining how to setup the farms. The lack of a super-city site besides the capital leads to having multiple farms. Lack of production leads to a super farm since you'll want caste system anyway for the workshops. Nearby marble and calendar resources means you can focus on some wonders and commerce and instead of producing an inordinate number of great people focus on getting the Mausoleum and then setting up a spy priest and engineer farms that you can use to push out a specific type while using caste system to generate the artist/scientist/merchant for the first few golden ages and then have a hybrid farm with NE that can generate the 2-3 random great people and then use one of the specialist farms to generate the 4th and/or 5th persons since your NE farm will be starting from scratch while the other farms will already have some investment in their specific unique type. You'll want to lower and/or disable the NE farm until the unique person is generated then crank back into gear for the next set.

One advantage to this is you do not need to build as many buildings in the NE farm, including unhealthy causing production building which lower your total specialist cap. How you manage post-emancipation is a question that I have not considered, though at that point you will have access to US so you could rush-buy the necessary buildings to open up more slots without losing too many GPP.

If you want to play Phi/Ind, it is extremely easy to mod yourself.

For a given map, with corporations and all known technologies, their is a number that, if you controlled the entire map, farmed your entire city and ran caste system, represents the maximum amount of GP/Turn you could generate. This, by definition, is finite.
That's not an example, it's a rephrase.

Anyway, how does this impact the 3 city situation vs the 1 city situation?

This is analogous to the additional factors that come into play when choosing to spread out your GP production among multiple cities.
Such as? ;)

As does the multi-farm strategy, which is the whole point of the response since your responses and examples seemed to focus on using an example that, as presented, made anyone who would voluntarily choose multiple farms (or bank accounts) sound like an idiot.
Didn't mean to make it sound that way.

Personally, I don't feel that presenting one thing in a very positive light says that anyone who doesn't do it is an idiot. If it did, then any and all commercial advertising would make us feel really stupid every single day. :lol:

In those situations where you really do care about the type having generated fewer great people early on, but making better use of them cause they fit into the overall strategy, is a benefit since the later ones are still fairly easy to achieve.
I agree with all that.

Corporations are the most common situation where you need a specific type (especially an engineer which is very hard to get late game and more-so if you've already generated a lot of great people early on). Golden Ages are the viable alternative, especially if you run state property.
Whether or not I'm doing a Wonder GP Farm, pretty much every game I know in advance what corps I want to found. And, I save the GP from whenever I get it. Especially if it's an Engineer. Even if you're running Caste and a specialist GP farm (no wonders), it's hard to make an Engineer on demand. A scientist or merchant, sure, no problem.

In this case that percentage difference means (I'm using logic instead of math so feel free to point out/prove any errors is said logic):

City A: Super GP Farm with National Epic
Cities B: Specialized GP Farms
Not Actual Numbers
Scenario 1 (No Bonuses): City A: 16 GP; Cities B: 10
Scenario 2 (Philosophical): City A: 19; Cities B: 15
Why do you grant Phi to Scenario 2? That's hardly fair.

I can quite conceivably run more total specialists and wonders in my multiple GP farm situation
How?

I'm focusing more on theory here, and it is quite possible that a situation won't ever exist where the sequence of great people generated in "cities B" has a greater value than those in "city A". But to dismiss the possibility categorically is short-sighted.
I'm not dismissing anything. Honestly, I run a specialist GP farm more often than not. You almost always have a high food city, but finding a high food AND high production city doesn't happen every game.

It seems like Polobo and Wodan have differing play styles.
Not really... I do a wonder GP farm maybe once every half dozen games. There's a time and place for it... it isn't a "one size fits all".

I see the merit in both types of GP Farming (ie multi-city specialized GP vs. single city mixed GP).
You're making a distinction we haven't really made, I think.

Here are all the possible scenarios (at least, that I can think of):
-- wonder (only) single city GP farm
-- specialist (only) single, no Caste
-- specialist (only) single, Caste
-- wonder/specialist single, no Caste
-- wonder/specialist single, Caste
-- wonder (only) multiple city GP farm (not sure this is realistic)
-- specialist (only) multiple, no Caste (a lot of games do this by default in the early game, and then switch to a different option later)
-- specialist (only) multiple, Caste
-- wonder/specialist multiple, no Caste
-- wonder/specialist multiple, Caste

A lot of what we've been talking is about wonders vs specialists. We've also talked about single city vs multiple city. However, they aren't necessarily tied together.

Bottom line, each of these options has pros and cons. I don't think we can say that one is always best.

One thing I really love about CIV is that each of these is very viable. Precisely because we CAN'T say one is always the best. That gives a lot of variety and repeat gameplay enjoyment.

Anyway, I would strongly encourage the active intention to play these different strategies.

Pretty much every game I scout the terrain, and then figure out what civics I'm going to run, what kind of economy, what kind of GP farm. I usually do this by 500BC or so. And, often the terrain is conducive to multiple options, which gives me the flexibility to play a lot of variety.

Wodan

I could see it dominating in a OCC but those are played for fun. I mean for SP it's about fun and all leader combo's should be allowed. MP where all the balance comes from. And if Phi/Ind was so powerful then it would not be OP in MP because of the fact that you start with a target saying "Kill me before I build a wonder". It's people like Capac/Augustus/Boudica who really screw up MP.

Actually please don't say anything about my examples as I don't play MP and just think that those leaders would Dominate.

Mad GP popping out like rabbits. ;) WodanSpeaking of wabbits ...


276 1996 AD Raphael (Great Artist) has been born in Tarsus (Ruff Persia)!
277 1997 AD John Dalton (Great Scientist) has been born in Berlin (Ruff Persia)!
280 2000 AD Moses (Great Prophet) has been born in Munich (Ruff Persia)!
283 2003 AD Ernest Rutherford (Great Scientist) has been born in Persepolis (Ruff Persia)!
285 2005 AD Pytheas (Great Merchant) has been born in Madrid (Ruff Persia)!
290 2010 AD Coco Chanel (Great Merchant) has been born in Cologne (Ruff Persia)!
296 2016 AD Richard Whittington (Great Merchant) has been born in Tarsus (Ruff Persia)!
298 2018 AD Socrates (Great Scientist) has been born in Zohak (Ruff Persia)!
299 2019 AD An Jung-Geun (Great Spy) has been born in Persepolis (Ruff Persia)!
300 2020 AD Arminius (Great General) has been born in Persepolis (Ruff Persia)!
302 2022 AD Zu Chongzhi (Great Scientist) has been born in Ecbatana (Ruff Persia)!
303 2023 AD Ludwig van Beethoven (Great Artist) has been born in Berlin (Ruff Persia)!
306 2026 AD Jacques Cartier (Great Merchant) has been born in Istakhr (Ruff Persia)!
309 2029 AD Al-Razi (Great Scientist) has been born in Persepolis (Ruff Persia)!
312 2032 AD Ferdinand Magellan (Great Merchant) has been born in Hamburg (Ruff Persia)!
315 2035 AD Aryabhata (Great Scientist) has been born in Pasargadae (Ruff Persia)!
318 2038 AD Charles Augustin de Coulomb (Great Engineer) has been born in Tarsus (Ruff Persia)!
323 2043 AD Harkuf (Great Merchant) has been born in Seville (Ruff Persia)!
326 2046 AD John Maynard Keynes (Great Merchant) has been born in Cologne (Ruff Persia)!


This is from a HOF game with about 20 cities, all suchi charged and having the state religion, running pacifism, caste system. Lots and lots of specialists. I didn't know what to do with them all so I just collected them and set of Golden Ages when I could.

What's so great about fin/ind?

The civ that has the leader with these traits :eek:.

It isn't just ind/fin. It's ind/fin with immunity to early barbs even without archery, the ability to flatten a neighbor on any difficulty, and zero need for monuments :mischief:.

Most leaders would be upgraded considerably when using inca!

The civ that has the leader with these traits :eek:.

It isn't just ind/fin. It's ind/fin with immunity to early barbs even without archery, the ability to flatten a neighbor on any difficulty, and zero need for monuments :mischief:.

Most leaders would be upgraded considerably when using inca!

Hardly.
Phi/Ind means a builder and a -prime- target to take over.

Just because someone has Stonehenge, the Pyramids, and The Great Wall... doesn't mean they aren't easy as hell to attack. The fact that they don't need to fight barbs means they probably aren't going to be focusing on making units.

Not to mention that if they -did- make a Phi/Ind leader, it'd have a crappy UU and UB.
Note that with the exception of England and Inca, if someone has strong traits they tend to have weak UU/UB, and vice versa. Hence why Roman leaders both have unfavorable trait combos, it's because their UU and UB kick too much ass.
Inca and England... might need to be balanced. I'll totally admit to that.

Hey Elizabeth (Vanilla) are those Redcoats? Why yes yes they are.
How did you get them before I get Education? Financial my dear.

Now Mr. Capac can you please explain how you won this last game? Easy, I build Quecha, kill archers, get land, and cottage
Do you considered Balanced? :lol:

;6970631']Because it would break the game.

No worse then the Quecha rush on Deity level.

WE/SSE would be the only viable strategy.

e.g., if I have $1000 in a bank account drawing 5% interest, and I take $100 and put it in an account at 3.5%, was it a good decision? From a purely numerical standpoint, no. But what you're saying here is "the 3.5% account provided useful benefits". ;)Polobo has probably responded to this well enough already, but I just find this "example" so ridiculous that I can't help but respond. The $1000 in your bank analogy is nothing at all like the specialists and wonders in the great people farm(s). It is desirable to have as many specialists as possible in the city with the national epic, but it is not possible take them from other cities. The main GP farm should have as many specialists as it can support. It should have the full $1000, if you like to see it that way. But that has nothing to do with how many specialists you put in your other cities. When I put more specialists in some secondary "GP farm", I'm not taking anything from the first one. It isn't anything like taking from the high interest account and depositing in a lower interest account. Each city supports its own population. In each city we must choose whether it is better to have a big stack of specialists producing GP, or something else (perhaps a higher number of hammers, or more money). One city will have a bigger boost to its GP output than the others, but that doesn't mean it isn't worth while having secondary GP farms. A secondary GP farm will be weaker than the primary one, but it may still be more powerful than some hodge-podge commerce/productivity city or whatever.

Anyway, I don't really want to argue about strategy. I mainly just wanted to say that the bank analogy was rubbish.

Polobo has probably responded to this well enough already, but I just find this "example" so ridiculous that I can't help but respond. The $1000 in your bank analogy is nothing at all like the specialists and wonders in the great people farm(s). It is desirable to have as many specialists as possible in the city with the national epic, but it is not possible take them from other cities. The main GP farm should have as many specialists as it can support. It should have the full $1000, if you like to see it that way. But that has nothing to do with how many specialists you put in your other cities.
What you "take" from the other cities is the opportunity to produce a GP.

If City A is producing 108 GP/turn, and City B is producing 18 GP/turn, then City B will not produce a GP before the game ends. Not even one.

Certainly, City B gets the immediate benefit that the specialists provide. But that's not what is being discussed.

This is why Polobo said he sometimes purposefully does not build the National Epic in his GP Farm. That means his primary bank account has the full $1000, but he intentionally tells the bank to only give him 2.5% interest.

Anyway an analogy only takes us so far.

What you "take" from the other cities is the opportunity to produce a GP.

If City A is producing 108 GP/turn, and City B is producing 18 GP/turn, then City B will not produce a GP before the game ends. Not even one.

Certainly, City B gets the immediate benefit that the specialists provide. But that's not what is being discussed.

This is why Polobo said he sometimes purposefully does not build the National Epic in his GP Farm. That means his primary bank account has the full $1000, but he intentionally tells the bank to only give him 2.5% interest.

Anyway an analogy only takes us so far.

In this case the analogy takes us nowhere since if my actual concern was pure GPP output then I would build the National Epic early and in every game. Since raw GPP is useless until you get enough in a particular city to generate a great person their is no comparison to an interest rate which gives me money which is immediately useful without requiring that I achieve critical mass and whose presence in one account in no way influences money in another account.

Why do you grant Phi to Scenario 2? That's hardly fair.
Look again, you'll notice that city A also increases in scenario, only it increases less since the bonuses are additive and it already has the National Epic.

Rethinking my statement on the relative number of specialists I guess if you strictly restrict each GP farm to a single specialist type then, ignoring wonders and caste system, the super GP farm should have a number of specialists equal to all the others since the same buildings will have been built. However, that assumes there is enough food and happy available to actually run all those specialists. With caste system and an happy cap of 6 I can run 8 specialists (4 merchants and 4 scientists) where as I can only run 4 in the super GP farm. If you insist on the bank analogy then I can put $500 in one account earning 5% or I can put $1000 split between two accounts each earning 2.5% Feel free to shoot holes in my variation but most likely anything that applies to mine applies to your original analogy as well.

You can contrive an example where it's better to have multiple GP producing cities. Just as I can contrive an example where it's better to have just one.

Depending on the game and your strategy, sometimes one is better, sometimes the other.

Which is the whole point of my initial response since your analogy of how the GP system worked described a scenario in which only your examples were the only valid choices.

Which is the whole point of my initial response since your analogy of how the GP system worked described a scenario in which only your examples were the only valid choices.
Did you even read the narrative which accompanied the analogy in the very same post?

What you "take" from the other cities is the opportunity to produce a GP.

If City A is producing 108 GP/turn, and City B is producing 18 GP/turn, then City B will not produce a GP before the game ends. Not even one.

Certainly, City B gets the immediate benefit that the specialists provide. But that's not what is being discussed.

This is why Polobo said he sometimes purposefully does not build the National Epic in his GP Farm. That means his primary bank account has the full $1000, but he intentionally tells the bank to only give him 2.5% interest.

Anyway an analogy only takes us so far.Obviously there is no point in having a secondary "GP farm" that is incapable of producing any GP, but that is rarely the case. It is true that whenever city B does manage to produce a GP, it becomes harder for city A to get the next one - but you still get the GP either way. The GP points in city A have not been wasted, they will go towards the next great person. More importantly, you have just made it harder for all of the other players to get their next GP. None of these strategy concepts are accurately reflected by the bank analogy. That analogy was complete trash. It could not possibly help anyone to imagine what having two GP farms would be like. It does not accurately describe anything to do with GP farms. There is not a well defined "pool of GP power" that can be spread arbitrarily across your cities (cf. the $1000). While some cities get more GP points per specialist (or wonder or whatever), it doesn't work anything like an interest rate. There are other important effects that are completely out the scope of banks and interest rates. You say that an analogy only takes us so far, which is true... but this particular analogy takes us no where at all.

Look, if you have one city that produces 100 GP points per turn (primary GP farm) that doesn't make it useless to set up another city to produce 50 GP points per turn (secondary GP farm). The second city won't produce as many GP as the first, but the total GP output will be higher than if the second city just focused on hammers or whatever. If you could roll it all together so that you had 150 GP/turn in one city then that would probably be better, but that isn't an option we have! The secondary GP farm can certainly increase the total output of great people. The only question is whether or not the extra great people are worth more than whatever else that second city might do instead - and that depends on all sorts of other things.

More importantly, you have just made it harder for all of the other players to get their next GP.
What? :confused:

Surely I don't have the wrong idea about this... every time any play gets a great person, the total number of GP points required to get another GP increases in all cities for all players. Is this not true? So if I get a GP, it makes it harder for the other players to get their next GP.

@ Karadoc, I believe you are mistaken. When you get a GP - the amount YOU need raises. At a certain point - somewhere between 1500 and 2000 it will raise by 100 only for every GP attained.

Obviously there is no point in having a secondary "GP farm" that is incapable of producing any GP, but that is rarely the case.
Agreed.

Unless, of course, one was using the strategy I was suggesting.

It is true that whenever city B does manage to produce a GP, it becomes harder for city A to get the next one - but you still get the GP either way.
Untrue.

There is not a well defined "pool of GP power" that can be spread arbitrarily across your cities (cf. the $1000).
Yes, there is, and yes it does. The cost to produce a GP applies to all your cities. If one city produces a GP, all your other cities have their cost increased.

Look, if you have one city that produces 100 GP points per turn (primary GP farm) that doesn't make it useless to set up another city to produce 50 GP points per turn (secondary GP farm).
Actually, a typical WE/GP farm will produce roughly 275 GPP/turn, 400 if running Pacifism. Meanwhile, a typical 2nd city might produce 50, if you're lucky. Yes, it is useless.

I think you're comparing the non-WE/GP farm situation, which is comparing apples to oranges.

If you could roll it all together so that you had 150 GP/turn in one city then that would probably be better, but that isn't an option we have!
Yes it is, to some extent. You can have the one city make more wonders, which does indeed "roll it all together". It doesn't share specialists, but the specialists in the second city are outstripped anyway so they will never make a GP.

oops gotta go

Balderstrom, I'll look into that. Thanks for the info.

Wodan,
- When you said "Untrue" what are you saying is untrue? Do do get the GP if it is produced by either city, and if either city produces the GP it increases the cost for the next GP. So what is untrue?

- I only said 100 GPP/turn because that was (close to) the number used in an earlier post. In any case, the national epic only gives +100%. It seems unlikely to me that your primary GP farm will have 400 GPP/turn and that the second will only have 50 GPP/turn "if you're lucky". How the hell does your primary city get 8 times the points? That's just silly. Most of the points have to come from specialists; and the +100% boost from the national epic doesn't actually double your great person points anyway, because you have other +% bonuses.

- Putting all the wonders in your GM farm doesn't seem like a realistic option at high difficulty levels. You're lucky to get the wonders you want at all, let alone get them all in the same city - which happens to be a city surrounded by farms to support stacks of specialists. If you're getting all those wonders in the city of your choosing, then you don't even need a great person farm. You've won the game anyway.

Bah! Anyway, I'm finished here. Like I said, I don't really want to argue about strategies. I just wanted to remove that silly analogy. I've already said what I wanted to say. So I'll try to not get sucked into this strategy debate any more.

I'd actually prefer a different GP mechanic. I've seen a few mods that run a "Global Empire GP pool" - that seems a bit excessive to me. Something that did come to mind though was to remove the RandomFactor.
IF You need 1000 PTS for the Next GP, and you have
700 - GProphet
200 - GScientist
100 - GEngineer
You would not get a GP until you had 1000 pts towards the relevant GP.
The system would allow you to "cash in" points towards another GP type at a given exchange rate. In the above case, You could exchange the 200 GScientist points for 100 more GProphet pts, and the 100 GE pts for 75 more GProphet...
Upping your total GProphet pts to 875 :-)


GSpy GEng GSci GMer GArt GPro
GSpy 100% 75% 75% 75% 75% 25%
GEngineer 75% 100% 75% 50% 50% 75%
GScientist 75% 75% 100% 50% 75% 50%
GMerchant 75% 50% 50% 100% 50% 75%
GArtist 75% 50% 75% 50% 100% 50%
GProphet 25% 75% 50% 75% 50% 100%

This could work alongside the current mechanic, by adding a toggle No Random GPs in the city screen.

If you extrapolated the idea further then it would need to replace the mechanic.
Each type of GP would increase in cost depending on how many you've gotten.
The cost of each GP might be (#Of_That_Type) + 1/2 (All_Other_GPs).
So if you've never gotten a Great Artist, but have gotten 5 Great Prophets, the cost for your first Great Artist - would be the equivalent of whatever the cost of the 2nd + 3rd GP is divided by 2. 0 GreatArtists + ( 5 GPs / 2 )

In general, I'd rather have less GP's but more control over what I get.

Wodan,
- When you said "Untrue" what are you saying is untrue? Do do get the GP if it is produced by either city, and if either city produces the GP it increases the cost for the next GP. So what is untrue?
The assertion that you always "still get the GP either way".

How the hell does your primary city get 8 times the points? That's just silly.
Build wonders. Each wonder adds 7.5 GPP.

Putting all the wonders in your GM farm doesn't seem like a realistic option at high difficulty levels. You're lucky to get the wonders you want at all, let alone get them all in the same city - which happens to be a city surrounded by farms to support stacks of specialists.
You have to have a high food / high production city.

If you're getting all those wonders in the city of your choosing, then you don't even need a great person farm. You've won the game anyway.
Really? Wonders = win? I don't remember seeing that as one of the victory conditions.

Seriously, sure wonders help. But they're hardly a sinecure.

Seriously, sure wonders help. But they're hardly a sinecure.

It's all down to tactics though. Phi/Ind can be a guaranteed way to loose early; if you're concentrating on trying to get all the wonders, whilst monty or shaka is concetrating on building a huge army to come and take your undefended wonders.

It's all down to tactics though. Phi/Ind can be a guaranteed way to loose early; if you're concentrating on trying to get all the wonders, whilst monty or shaka is concetrating on building a huge army to come and take your undefended wonders.
Sure. That's always true.

One advantage of using Phi/Ind with a wonder city is that you only have to devote one city to making wonders. It would be a nice "gut check" so you don't go overboard and start making wonders in too many cities, which as you rightly say can get you in trouble.

e.g., if I have $1000 in a bank account drawing 5% interest, and I take $100 and put it in an account at 3.5%, was it a good decision? From a purely numerical standpoint, no. But what you're saying here is "the 3.5% account provided useful benefits". ;)

You are making the mistake of believing it is possible to put all your eggs in one basket, and this is simply not the way it works. I see over and over again, almost every game, that even though I've got 20 Wonders and 10 Specialists in my NE city, I can STILL see MULTIPLE cities produce a GP, because they can ALSO have 10 Specialists. And the NP city can probably have 15-20 Specialists!

If I could pack all those extra Specialists into my NE city and have 100 Specialists, okay, you'd be right, but that's not how it works.

Philosophical, Pacifism, and Golden Ages only prove you even more wrong. As you said, the effects are additive, not multiplicative.

Simple experiment: build three cities under a non-Phi leader, Bio-farm the crap out of two of them and FP the other one, and give that one NP. In one of the other two, put 20 Wonders (including MoM) and NE. Now max everyone's population. Give yourself all the techs while we're at it, and emplace plenty of buildings for happiness/health/whatever. Put yourself in Caste System and assign all your spare Specialists to Merchants. Make your production Gold too.

Your two farm cities will have a population around 40, so you have 20 specialists. Your NP city should have a pop of about 20, with 20 free Specialists, so each city has an equal number of Specialists.

Okay, let it go 24 turns, sleeping GPs as they pop up.

Now, it's time to kick off 2 Golden Ages and go into Pacifism. Move all your current GPs out of the way so you can see the new ones popping up. We kick off 2 to use 1 GP from each city, and to give us 24 turns to match the pre-GA time.

Once your Golden Age is over, take note of the ratios.

Pre-GA, you probably had significantly more GPs from the GP farm, since 20 Wonders + NE = HOLY CRAP!

But during the GA, your GP Farm's production doubled, but that of the other two cities TRIPLED. If you have the Parthenon and Forums, the difference is even larger. If you are Philosophical, it's larger still. This means your non-GP farm cities produced significantly more GPs during that time. Not as many as the GP farm, but they got A LOT CLOSER to its production.

Now tell me how you could possibly have weighted your GP farm to take up some of those slack Specialists without diminishing your total GPs or gold produced.

I don't farm that much myself, but when Sid's Sushi comes along, you better believe I switch to Rep and assign all that extra Food to Specialists for the beaker boost, and I get a lot more GPs then too, and a significant fraction of them come from the non-NE cities.

I only play with certain leaders because I can only play certain strategies.
In fact, I don't play as anyone who isn't either Fin or Phi, really.
I just don't really know how to play as the other leaders right. Which sucks because I'd like to learn to get good at China, Egypt, Rome, and... >.> Napoleon or De Gaulle of France.

I play with a very mixed batch of leaders, I rarely play the same guy twice. Here's a tip for being good with the various traits: play them exactly the same as anyone else. Traits, while great and give you bonuses, aren't the be-all-and-end-all. You can still cottage spam and work coastal tiles without financial, you can still make a GP farm without philosophical, build wonders without industrious, build courthouses without organized, etc.

You can play other leaders right without doing some sort of crazy strategy to get the most out of their traits. Allow their bonuses to help you in their areas, and just play them normally. If its really hard for you just move the difficulty back a slot.

I like the representation and specialist approach. The strategy can yield huge benfits to a science city with oxford uni. I also liked the approach to add GM to cities with the +1 food per specialist then adding Wall Street. Assuming the cities can cope with happiness and health issues and you have enough national wonders left to add. (2 is a bit limiting for me)

The argument seems to be focusing on whether the 2nd/3rd city add value. If a second city can produce great people at a rate of 1-2 or 1-3/4 compared to your main GP farm then this must add value? My objective would be to produce as many great people as possible under a Phil trait. The great people made from a second city could easily be added to the first city or used towards your goal be it science city, commerce, towards GA's or something else.

The same objective at start would be to reach philosophy and build national Epic asap. On my last game I set up a second city whipped library and set up 2 GS while my GP farm grew and built granaries etc.

I nabbed COL through Oracle and bulbed philosophy with GS. Advantage with GS is you get there much earlier. (wasnt playing a Phil leader though)

I am not sure about the Golden Age appraoch. Okay this increases your GPP base rate by 100%. Excellent!!!
Firstly you need MM to really add value. +50% to golden age length.
Secondly need Taj mahal for free golden age.
I might go for Statue of Zeus for the Colloseum quest. (creates a golden age). The option is there for the computer if you build it.
If your lucky the warning of invasion event that can trigger a golden age. (If your unlucky you might get invaded :lol: or just not get the event)

So cost of using a great person rises each time needing x different types of leader for each golden age. so 1,2,3,4,5. I would find it very difficult to mcro a city to make sure i had five different ones each time.

In fact its difficult to know which ones the computer will gobble up when you select a golden age apart from initial GP you select. Its not so easy to get certain types of Great people back. (Engineers) Caste system helps here. Targetted GP farms might help too.

I am also not sure what happens when you pass the 5 GA mark. (6 GP including 2 of 1?)

Asks the question when do you lose value in terms of spending great people fro GA's. 4-5 seems a lot for a golden age.

In terms of ind trait. i dont think its just the fact your building a wonder city. Its the benefits that all those wonders bring. Great wall, Stone henge, Mids, Notre Dame.

If I can built a non philosophical GP farm at 1500ad with 150GPPt. Your looking at 180-220 GPPT+ for Phil leader and thats before you factor in Suchi corp or other national wonders.

If you are bulbing early on the chances are your gonna hit 95% of the wonders first and be able to build them 50% faster and add 50% from each forest chop. Add stone or marble and thats a crazy result even for emperor level.


So the end result of all this is through bulbing or specialist cities you have a huge tech lead or your economy is in a GA for best part of 90-105+ turns. Have I missed something?

Done!!!!

Because it would break the game.

I disagree on this. Organized and Financial is freakin powerful, always has been. This is an economical combo just like Ind/Phi. So if combined with a miltaristic civ can be really powerful. Just like comboing an military combo with a militaristic civ. Persia is not that miltaristic honestly. I can't recall their UB atm though. What I mean by that is Rome IS a militaristic civ no matter what leader you run them with.
(Let's ignore traits for a second.)
Your praets are a threat for 2 ages because you get maces at swords. Gunpowder and Guilds effectively obsolete maces. That is alot of power for a civ's UU and UB to possess when you look at the selection available. England is pretty militaristic too commanding a long period of time with its UU/UB combo.
Now, lets look at Mr Hyuana. I bring him up because alot of people view him as the most OP'ed and I think he is a wuss. OK your UB is good with him. Kinda like a fee creative trait. But your unique unit obsoletes as soon as you discover a new melee unit. That means if you even want spears you just indirectly obsoleted your UU because now you can build axes. The incans are an econimal civ for the rest of the game based soley on their UB/UU.

I think it all depends on what leader is assigned these traits. Isn't Ind/Phi the last combo left unused? Anyways, it only gets "broken" with unrestricted leaders IMO. But alot of strange combos make/break stuff with that rule. I won't play a game of UL's because I honestly don't care. But those that do do so because its fun for them.

I disagree on this. Organized and Financial is freakin powerful, always has been. This is an economical combo just like Ind/Phi. So if combined with a miltaristic civ can be really powerful. Just like comboing an military combo with a militaristic civ. Persia is not that miltaristic honestly. I can't recall their UB atm though. What I mean by that is Rome IS a militaristic civ no matter what leader you run them with.
(Let's ignore traits for a second.)
Your praets are a threat for 2 ages because you get maces at swords. Gunpowder and Guilds effectively obsolete maces. That is alot of power for a civ's UU and UB to possess when you look at the selection available. England is pretty militaristic too commanding a long period of time with its UU/UB combo.
Now, lets look at Mr Hyuana. I bring him up because alot of people view him as the most OP'ed and I think he is a wuss. OK your UB is good with him. Kinda like a fee creative trait. But your unique unit obsoletes as soon as you discover a new melee unit. That means if you even want spears you just indirectly obsoleted your UU because now you can build axes. The incans are an econimal civ for the rest of the game based soley on their UB/UU.

I think it all depends on what leader is assigned these traits. Isn't Ind/Phi the last combo left unused? Anyways, it only gets "broken" with unrestricted leaders IMO. But alot of strange combos make/break stuff with that rule. I won't play a game of UL's because I honestly don't care. But those that do do so because its fun for them.

Ind/Phi would still break the game.

Persia is not that miltaristic honestly.

I thought Persia had one of the top 3/4 best UU?

Incas unit is really unfair on higher levels. If the AI countered with warriors they would get early rushed by Quelchas. If they build archers they still get rushed by Quelchas. They have no real reply till axemen arrive.

No Ai is ready for an attack come 3000bc. By the time Axemen arrive the damage is done. A great general is born and the Incas have land to block off. The incas can still target the nations that has no copper/iron once axe and sword arrives. Prets I would of shaved to 7 strength.

You cant balance everything but you can mod other things. I think there a few unmatched trait pairs if i remember from reading the forum. Just because things can be paired doesnt mean you should!!! Unless your testing a game for balance and employed by one of the great game makers out there. :mischief:

;7177038']Ind/Phi would still break the game.

Only if people play it. And people who play it would probably want to "break the game" in their favour. So, why exclude people who want that?

For me, I just want my pro/org :(

;7177038']Ind/Phi would still break the game.

Just 'cuz?

I thought Persia had one of the top 3/4 best UU? I disagree there. I would rather have the war chariot personally.

Incas unit is really unfair on higher levels. If the AI countered with warriors they would get early rushed by Quelchas. If they build archers they still get rushed by Quelchas. They have no real reply till axemen arrive.
I would say its power is determined on the size of the map moreso than difficulty rating. As the higher the difficulty the AI gets more bonus towards research thus faster axes. Your rush is stopped as soon as someone has axes really, whether it be you or them. However, if you are only playing against 5 opponents on a standard map, then yeah they have some power. But on Huge against 17 civs, it means you can eliminate 1-2 other civs. And now 15 are still left and you arent in the clasical age and might have even been avoiding BW.

No Ai is ready for an attack come 3000bc. By the time Axemen arrive the damage is done. A great general is born and the Incas have land to block off. The incas can still target the nations that has no copper/iron once axe and sword arrives. Prets I would of shaved to 7 strength.
Actually you have to aim for civ s with no resources, horses stop you too. Cover is not all that great even if built in IMO.

You cant balance everything but you can mod other things. I think there a few unmatched trait pairs if i remember from reading the forum. Just because things can be paired doesnt mean you should!!! Unless your testing a game for balance and employed by one of the great game makers out there.
Says who? I guess Bill Gates should have never messed with figuring out a system better than DOS because he wasnt employed by one of the Operating System makers out there. I refuse to accept this as game breaking because Firaxis chose not to do it for whatever reason. (I sometimes wonder if angels and trumpets sound in some people's mind when they see that name)

EDIT: I ain't going offensive anywhere in this post. I think perhaps I have spotted a 'tone' I have in my posting habits others have mentioned before. I am a smart ass in real life an on the internet. So take sarcasm with a grain of salt with me. The part in parenthesis is true though.

You can't compare an UU to traits. a UU becomes obsolete. Traits never become obsolete.


Being able to construct wonders amazingly fast and getting 100% GP faster would break the game. There's no other way to explain it but by just stating that.

;7177393']You can't compare an UU to traits. a UU becomes obsolete. Traits never become obsolete.


Being able to construct wonders amazingly fast and getting 100% GP faster would break the game. There's no other way to explain it but by just stating that.

Yes you can, because there is a common denominator - total effect on the game. Yes, UU's become obsolete... But if war chariots allow you to wipe out one or two opponents that you otherwise wouldn't have been able to, then... Well, there are more than a few traits that in many games don't have that much impact. The moment a UU let's you wage a major war successfully that you couldn't have without it, it rivals traits for overall effect on a game in my eyes. Having several conquered cities and a slew more land to expand into because of a UU is a *huge* factor in a game.

re Incas: The Quechua is not obsolete quickly at all.

I will often use mixed stacks of Axemen and Quechuas into the Medieval age because Quechuas are simply that hammer-efficient.
Especially if I can keep my victim(s) off strategic resources, there is no reason to phase them out.

Also, unlike regular Warriors I can build them until I have Macemen. This has two uses: Dirt cheap riot suppression units that I never plan to use in combat, and the ability to 'rush-buy' Axes and initial Macemen by building Quechuas and upgrading.
The conversion rates from gold to hammers are worse than using Universal Suffrage - 4 and 3.4 gold per hammer respectively - but I get a free Combat 1 thrown in. Definitely worth considering.

re Incas: The Quechua is not obsolete quickly at all.

I will often use mixed stacks of Axemen and Quechuas into the Medieval age because Quechuas are simply that hammer-efficient.
Especially if I can keep my victim(s) off strategic resources, there is no reason to phase them out.

Also, unlike regular Warriors I can build them until I have Macemen. This has two uses: Dirt cheap riot suppression units that I never plan to use in combat, and the ability to 'rush-buy' Axes and initial Macemen by building Quechuas and upgrading.
The conversion rates from gold to hammers are worse than using Universal Suffrage - 4 and 3.4 gold per hammer respectively - but I get a free Combat 1 thrown in. Definitely worth considering.

I coulda swore Axemen makes Quechuas no longer buildable. If so, then they arent as bad as I thought as they can reinforce an axe rush making it 2-4 nearby civs rather than 1-2. I still think he is a wuss but I gotta admit thats a handy catch.

quechuas are obsolete if you can build both axemen and spearmen

Could people not correct simple statements like that unless they are certain please? It takes about half a minute to confirm this, and if you don't have the game available it would make more sense to wait before giving false information.



You can't build Warriors when Axemen AND Spearmen become available, but the same doesn't apply to Quechuas. Those become obsolete with Macemen.
Not all UUs have the same upgrade tree (and therefore obsolescence) as their parent unit - Praetorians are another example.

You can build Quechuas in the Renaissance era by not teching Hunting, but normally they will be made obsolete by Macemen.

Just 'cuz?

I disagree there. I would rather have the war chariot personally.



Yep thats why i said top 3/4. War chariot is a good early uu. I woud add that some of my earliest conquests have been with persia. If the unit didnt get killed it retreated. Although I think a barb event with spearmen can happen more often on Persia games. 6-7 spearmen heading your way is not funny. (NB I try to play a different leader for each game I start)

Your right about mapsize. When I moved up from 7 to 11 Ai on huge maps I found it a jump in difficulty. Early wars may secure more land but theres 9 Ai left instead of 5.

I dont agree with the horseman comment. By the time the AI has Horse the damage is already done. Chariots are less of an issue. 2 quelchas to one chariot is still cheap. If you scout out the land correctly you can work out which AI may have copper/horse resourse early on. Your unlucky if the resource is in their first city BFC. You can start Quelcha production from turn 1 as you can steal all the workers you need so why build any? On a good site a Quelcha in 5-6 turns.

As for the gaming comment I think testers are there to play all the settings with traits and units etc. If Firaxis thought something was unbalanced they would of changed some settings in a patch. Most of the above units were in the original game. Would have been fun to be testing the game. ;)

Maybe IW should require some other techs before you can research it. Any civ that starts with Mining (like Rome) can be at IW with just 2 techs, or 3 even if you don't. Or even give them different starting techs - the table of starting techs could use some evening out. How abot the Wheel? The Japanese could use some company. Or Swordsman could require a second tech. Or Chariots could have a bonus against all Melee and not just Axes.

Yes you can, because there is a common denominator - total effect on the game. Yes, UU's become obsolete... But if war chariots allow you to wipe out one or two opponents that you otherwise wouldn't have been able to, then... Well, there are more than a few traits that in many games don't have that much impact. The moment a UU let's you wage a major war successfully that you couldn't have without it, it rivals traits for overall effect on a game in my eyes. Having several conquered cities and a slew more land to expand into because of a UU is a *huge* factor in a game.

You still can't compare a Praet to Ind / Phi.


It's like apples and oranges, despite the fact that they have a total effect on the game, praets will become obsolete..

Let's see what bonuses Ind / Phi gives..


+100% Towards forges
+50% towards Wonders
+100% Towards Universities
+100% Towards Great people.

Great people are the deciding facter here when it comes to debating this.

AfterShafter nailed it earlier.

I'm far from convinced that Ind/Phi would break the game, but even if it would, so what? MP games can easily set up house rules to keep it from affecting them, so we're really talking about SP here. Those who don't want to use it because they think it breaks the game in the human's hands can simply avoid using that leader. Those who don't want to face it because they think it breaks the game in the AI's hands can simply exclude that leader in the game setup. Inclusion lets each player decide for himself whether it breaks the game, and what to do if it does. One player's deciding he likes the combo and wants to use it doesn't interfere at all with anyone else's enjoyment of the game, which is the end goal, after all.

Maybe IW should require some other techs before you can research it. Any civ that starts with Mining (like Rome) can be at IW with just 2 techs, or 3 even if you don't. Or even give them different starting techs - the table of starting techs could use some evening out. How abot the Wheel? The Japanese could use some company. Or Swordsman could require a second tech. Or Chariots could have a bonus against all Melee and not just Axes

I am actually going to entirely restructure the tech tree before I am finished. But I have my chariots to have +25% vs. melee. So they are just a 5 str vs. melee unpromoted against an axe.(6 str with shock - My axes are 4 str though) So they still remain a counter for axes and axes counter swords etc. A spear still wipes out chariots. Recently, I have been considering allowing chariots to upgrade to HA's. I figure they upgrade to knights due to their +100 vs axemen specifically. But with this system that no longer applies. SO upgrading a C1/Shock chariot to a HA allows you to have a chance at spears. (7.5 vs. 8) However, remember those are unpromoted spears. And also HA's are not exactly easy to do a rush with. Popping it from a hut is really your best chance.
I prefer for base units to stay reletively equal in power and have promotion specialization determine strengths, I guess. That may just be my tastes prefering soft counters to hard counters though.

;7179921']You still can't compare a Praet to Ind / Phi.


It's like apples and oranges, despite the fact that they have a total effect on the game, praets will become obsolete..

Let's see what bonuses Ind / Phi gives..


+100% Towards forges
+50% towards Wonders
+100% Towards Universities
+100% Towards Great people.

Great people are the deciding facter here when it comes to debating this.

Urm... You said "You can't compare an UU to traits." Traits, not "those two traits." I never said any UU was more powerful than one of the most freaky powerful trait combos possible - I said that you could well compare UU's to traits, seeing as there is a very common denominator between them. I'd argue that a few UU's out there make more difference in a lot of games than individual traits, and even a lot of trait combos.

;7179921']You still can't compare a Praet to Ind / Phi.

Nobody is comparing UU to traits. We are saying that a UU/UB's synergy also has a synergy with the trait combo. If a civ gets to have this combo, it needs to be one of the civs with crap UU/UB combo. Like spain, celts, ethipia. Etc. It should NOT go to people like Rome, Byzantine, England, etc. That is when you break the game. Hell IMO the game is broken in factory condition. The balance is weighted too heavily in key points on in the game design.

Nobody is comparing UU to traits.

I did :D But I qualified it heavily, and wasn't really involved in the main discussion ;)

Considering they already have Fin/Org and Agg/Cha in the game, I don't see why they should block Phi/Ind.

BECAUSE IT WOULD BREAK THE GAME

Have you ever seen how many GP you can pump out by building all the wonders Obsolete-Style? It's freaking INSANE to have the ability to get GP 100% faster AND build Wonders 50% Faster.

In a test game on an 18earth civ map, I was the French, and built every wonder. I ended up in the renaissance with many GP, including 6 great prophets.

A G. Prophet gives you 2 Hammers and 5 gold. If I had 12 great prophets it would be freaking insane.

As well as 2x all the great people I had ever spawned.

;7182033']BECAUSE IT WOULD BREAK THE GAME


So... Don't play whichever leader had that combo? :crazyeye: It's quite arguable that Boudica of the Incans breaks the games on duel maps, (among other combos on other maps - Boudica of Rome, Darius of the Portugese, etc) but the game lets me do that if I want and... Well, go figure - my game works just fine.

Genv, you have to understand, we know exactly how powerful this combo is. The thing is, it wouldn't break the game - unless someone goes out of their way to pick this leader and exploit this combo to trivialize the abilities of whoever they're playing against. The thing is, let's say someone picks whichever leader is Ind/Phi (Pontiac, how about)... How does it break YOUR game? How does it break MY game? And if I'm playing multiplayer with that person - who are they fooling? If I pick Gandhi in a duel map and the other guy picks the Incans, we both know what we're getting into. It's not like any time someone picks a "broken" combo they have to make a kitten omlette and bring it to the old folks home. Really, don't tell us how broken it would be with stats, because we know that.. Tell us where is the harm in it being that powerful and people still being allowed to use it? Tell us how it makes our games in some way unplayable, less fun to play - because "broken" combos are something that are, from time to time, fun to drop into for a lot of people, and as such actually add to the game overall. Oh, and, we all know the CPU couldn't exploit a trait combo if its life depended on it, so that's not the reason. Just look at how it plays Darius... Oye!

Broken combos are not meant to be in the game. Competent developers don't put broken stuff in the game because they're fun to other people. The only put things in the game once they know that they are well balanced.


If it bothers you so much go mod it yourself.

;7182188']Broken combos are not meant to be in the game. Competent developers don't put broken stuff in the game because they're fun to other people. The only put things in the game once they know that they are well balanced.


If it bothers you so much go mod it yourself.

The fact that there are several "broken" combos perfectly available for play out of the box. There are UU's that "break" the game on a variety of map types, trait combos which are vastly more powerful than others which "break" the game when paired with certain Civs... And these are in the game already. Unless you're calling Sid and company incompetent developers... :crazyeye: Besides, I think it would be a hallmark of a competent developer to put things in because they're fun, when they don't mess up other peoples' playing - which Ind/Phil doesn't.

If "broken" combos being in the game bother you so much, even when they will never affect the quality of your play at all, you're the one who should be modding, since such combos are already present in game.

There's no Combo or UU that breaks the game... Name one, And I'll tell you how it can easily be countered.

;7182239']There's no Combo or UU that breaks the game... Name one, And I'll tell you how it can easily be countered.

The meaning of "broken" isn't "cannot be countered." Someone goes the Ind/Phil leader? Go Incan - cram some Quechas down the throat of our wonder-happy friend. End of story, and all of the sudden your "broken" Civ is broken in half. If "broken" equals "cannot be countered" by your definition, then it is painfully obvious that Ind/Phil isn't broken.

Incans on duel maps, Praet rushes on any maps where the CPU doesn't prepare for a praet rush (IE - any map, ever), Darius of the Dutch/Portugese on island oriented maps, Boudica of Rome... All arguably broken - all frequently argued to be broken - and all perfectly able to be countered. Just like ind/phil.

If there is currently no trait combo that breaks the game, Ind/Phil would not be an exception. Unless the leader was stacked with an incredible early defense UU, they'd be easy to rush with one of the other "broken" combos or, heck, just war chariots or something. And even if you gave Ind/Phil the best UU and UB in the game, it is still absolutely true that no-one ever has to play this leader unless they want to. And if they want to... Well, then who are we to tell them they can't steamroll the CPU for fun? Are the CPU's feelings getting hurt when this happens or something? Are yours on its behalf?

PHI doesn't give you twice the Great People, far from it (GPP have greatly diminishing returns). The problem wouldn't be having 10 Great Prophets in the Renaissance, the problem would be recovering too quickly from the investment in the Classical Age.

A judicious bulb or two could put one into the position to build the rest of the wonders easily, the rest would be settled to give one a powerful, undisruptable economy that doesn't even require a lot of land (greatly facilitating defence). Maybe the developers felt that cruising to an easy victory without regard for land shouldn't be possible.

Also, I wouldn't be surprised if the trait combo broke OCCs in half.

While I agree with everything else AfterShafter says above, I gotta d