Other trait combos for civ leaders

[Seraiel]

700 AD Space Victory is more then just "Huayna Capac" .

I agree with you, that it's absolutely necessary to play that leader for such a finish-date, but a lot of other things have to go really well for something that special. There's actually a really good Writeup and discussion about that specific game in the HoF forums, if you're interested.

I even tried to achieve a similar result with Darius, but I could neither manage to get as many cities as WastinTime got, nor did my game give me the chances I would have needed. Anyhow, I posted some saves, and I managed to get Oracle -> Construction at 2200 BC, but as everything added up throughout the game, I only managed a 1200 AD victory date.

 

[VSarius]

Oh I've been following along, it's a fascinating read and probably the most impressive game of Civ 4 I've seen but yes I agree, a date that early is unlikely to be possible without HC.

 

[ElmoEmo]

I'd recommend watching the movie "Elizabeth".
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0127536/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1
I'm not English, and can't attest to it's historical accuracy, but it is a good movie.

Elizabeth is vastly overrated in my opinion. "Greatest monarch of all time?" please, she's not even the greatest in England. Her accomplishments are not impressive compared to some of the greatest monarchs in England.
standards are always lowered for women.

 

[Drakarska]

Interesting. So it's your opinion that woman are inferior to men? That any of her accomplishments as Queen of England lack any historical significance compared to the Kings of England? I'm not trying to start anything here, I'm just trying to understand your demeanor.

 

[Manco Capac]

I'm a misogynist and I prefer women to have the crappy trait combos I won't consider playing and give men with crappy traits better traits.

Lol You made my day.

And please just ignore the sexist part. It's a downward spiral to off-top. Stick with the main subject people.

Per experience, PRO and AGG are the poorest traits. Giv'em to all your female leaders.

 

[ElmoEmo]

Interesting. So it's your opinion that woman are inferior to men? That any of her accomplishments as Queen of England lack any historical significance compared to the Kings of England? I'm not trying to start anything here, I'm just trying to understand your demeanor.

I didn't conclude women are inferior to men out of the blue. It's just that by experience and history, men outperform women. Same thing, Elizabeth is freakin' overrated. There are a lot of kings that are better than her. Even Victoria is better than her.

 

[ElmoEmo]

Lol You made my day.

And please just ignore the sexist part. It's a downward spiral to off-top. Stick with the main subject people.

Per experience, PRO and AGG are the poorest traits. Giv'em to all your female leaders.

Pro/Agg may not be a stimulating trait combo but the AI seems to be good at it. In most of my games, Toku just runs over his neighbors. Their AI counterpart should be bad at the game as well since I won't play them anyway. The worst possible trait combo is probably Pro/Imp and have them focus on gold and science.

 

[Manco Capac]

I didn't conclude women are inferior to men out of the blue. It's just that by experience and history, men outperform women. Same thing, Elizabeth is freakin' overrated. There are a lot of kings that are better than her. Even Victoria is better than her.

I wished I didn't take this path, but I think there are primary reasons why men outperform women:

1) Most societies are patriarcal; it devalorizes women by a long stretch; it's harder to get far if the society keeps thwarting you
2)Women are often burdened; they have the children and most of the time take care while the men are away
3)Men are more sociopathic than women on average; basically to quote David Rossi from Criminal Minds (episode A thousand words): Men don't give a damn.

 

[Jastrow]

Dont forget another very big reason, which is simple statistics.... IN many fields, historically (and the trends are changing), simply more men have participated than women.... From them on, it is simply statistics that most of the top acheivers are men.

 

[Fippy]

Now where would Emo be without a mother, maybe in an universe far far away where he could exist without relying on inferior women giving him birth.

 

[ElmoEmo]

I wished I didn't take this path, but I think there are primary reasons why men outperform women:

1) Most societies are patriarcal; it devalorizes women by a long stretch; it's harder to get far if the society keeps thwarting you
2)Women are often burdened; they have the children and most of the time take care while the men are away
3)Men are more sociopathic than women on average; basically to quote David Rossi from Criminal Minds (episode A thousand words): Men don't give a damn.

and here's my rebuttal to your points.
1) of course societies have to be patriarchal. It developed that way. Why? Back in the days when there were no appliances, houses, etc, it was men who came up with the idea of society. Men built society. Men invented 90% of the inventions. It wouldn't make sense if men invented society and tweak it to matriarchy just for the heck of it now would it.
And no one is stopping women. If there was, we wouldn't have any Marie Curie, Ada Lovace and some other smart women I don't know about, or even have them recognized. It's just that most of them just don't have the ability to think critically.
2) because that's the way it is. Women take care of the children, men take care of the family. All of the women I know prefers that role anyway. It all comes down to choices. If you want to perform, don't have children.
3) risk takers would be a better word. Men are more risk takers while women are more confirming. If it weren't for men's risk taking, we would still be in the stone age.

 

[ElmoEmo]

Dont forget another very big reason, which is simple statistics.... IN many fields, historically (and the trends are changing), simply more men have participated than women.... From them on, it is simply statistics that most of the top acheivers are men.

the only reason why the trends are changing is because we have so many useless fields. One thing I notice is that women excel in useless fields while men excel in the important stuffs like engineering and computer courses.

 

[Drakarska]

Lol, I'll say this for you bro, your consistent. I really should invite Lemon and Unforced Error to this thread, it would get interesting really quick

 

[Manco Capac]

No, bad idea. Fighting phallocentrism is a loss of time.

 

[Jastrow]

Tachy is right. This guy is a waste of time... I, for one, am done with this thread (and poster).

 

[ElmoEmo]

Tachy is right. This guy is a waste of time... I, for one, am done with this thread (and poster).

haha, typical feminist. When there's a strong argument, *covers ears*.

 

[The Diocletian]

Criminal Minds

Only thing worth watching on the TV, IMO.

Women have made many strides in important fields, and to say that they fulfill no real utilitarian role is absurd to the point of ignorance, which is really the only word I can summon for what I really must describe as nothing more then a completely full lack of knowledge of the vital role women have played in history.

No feminist, I assure you. I do in fact harbor a venomous dislike of feminism, but certainly several orders of magnitude smaller then anything you can dish out.

I am perturbed by how you arrived at such an illogical and broken view of the role women have acted in the history we know.

That is all I really can say.

 

[Drakarska]

Only thing worth watching on the TV, IMO.

Well, that and Burn Notice

 

[The Diocletian]

Well, that and Burn Notice

Isn't that show ending?

Mindless chatter in the same thread as a raging misogynist argues with people. Queer, isn't it?

 

[lymond]

Women just let us men think we run things


Wow....it not everyday you see a full-on misogynist. I don't think the word "appalled" suffices here.