Protective v. Imperialist

[bonafide11]

Most people seem to think these are the two weakest traits. I'm not sure that I agree. They're not the strongest traits for sure, but I still like them, and I can't figure out which one I like more.

So which do you prefer?

 

[DigitalBoy]

I think protective is better. I'm a sucker for free promotions, and high-powered level 1 archers and fast walls can be useful if you need to mount a defense quickly. If you don't mind being stuck with just CG1 and Drill I, you can save hammers by skipping barracks. Walls and castles also got buffed in BtS against siege units, not that the AI was great at siege anyway, whatever.

On the flip side, imperialistic's production bonus for settlers is good enough if you whip a lot of your early settlers (which I do), but I don't care much for great generals and wouldn't want to devote half of a trait to them.

 

[Enigma256]

if i have to choose between those two it would be protective

 

[L4zXX0r]

protective is much better, though Imperialism has it's uses. I do like Cyrus from time to time. Protective is great late game when you get gunpowder units. Nothing like a beeline to Rifling with Churchill or Tokugawa.

 

[Antilogic]

I'm not voting in the poll just yet because they both have merits if you use the traits to their max potential. That being said, I have the most difficulty maxing out the Imperialistic bonus. However, because I only build a few cities (smaller maps), I don't always feel the full force of the settler bonus.

I do like great generals, though.


I really think Protective gets a bad rap on these forums. Ignoring the double-production buildings, the free City Garrison and Drill promotions for your archers and gunpowder units are amazing. It allows you to get Drill 4 that much quicker, and with all those first strikes you can do some serious damage without being hurt much in retaliation. It's not the first trait I would select, but it's a good secondary benefit.

And, if you are desperate for espionage points, the castle does give you +25% espionage along with the trade route and the half-dozen other bonuses it has because Firaxis keeps giving it bonuses to try and convince people it is worth the hammers.

 

[DigitalBoy]

And, if you are desperate for espionage points, the castle does give you +25% espionage along with the trade route and the half-dozen other bonuses it has because Firaxis keeps giving it bonuses to try and convince people it is worth the hammers.

I couldn't have put this better myself no matter how I'd try.

 

[Tarew]

I haven't been playing this game for long at all but from what I've seen so far (granted I only play on Noble), Protective is not at ALL bad. In fact it's the only reason I managed to stay alive with Qin Shi Huang (eventually winning a space race victory) against repeated attacks by Genghis Khan, Ragnar and Charlemagne and Hannibal (sometimes 3 of those at once).
Being able to get City Defender III on your longbowmen and infantry right off the bat is invaluable and Drill is anything but useless too.

I do however think Imperialistic is somewhat underpowered. The added Great generals aren't THAT big a deal and the improved settler speed is nice but when you never found more than 6 cities in a game like I do (getting the rest by either conquest or culture), it's not exactly game-breaking.

 

[Antilogic]

I couldn't have put this better myself no matter how I'd try.

It's so funny because it is true! Seriously, bombard resistance, extra city defense, culture, trade routes, espionage...wow. That's a serious building right there. The one thing Firaxis won't do is take away that Walls prerequisite that turns everybody away from them!

 

[dutchking]

I like protective better. Imperialistic is only good when combined with other stronger traits that blend with it nicely, such as Expansive. My favorite trait combo is Char/Pro anyway.

 

[Antilogic]

I do however think Imperialistic is somewhat underpowered. The added Great generals aren't THAT big a deal and the improved settler speed is nice but when you never found more than 6 cities in a game like I do (getting the rest by either conquest or culture), it's not exactly game-breaking.

If you play on Small maps, you might found 4 before you have to start fighting for territory. I love having Great Generals, but I can typically get the one or two I want without the Imperialistic trait--I can wait for them if I get another good trait.

I figured double production on Monuments would be fitting and a small enough boost that nobody would care. But it would at least give Imperialistic something else to work with, for early culture grabbing.

 

[Lance of Llanwy]

I voted for Imperialist. I DO play Large maps, so I see more out of the settler bonus, and IMO it is better when leveraged, though leveraging it takes more work on the player's part. But maybe I'm just a bit partial towards Cyrus and immortals

Both traits could use some work. And no, I don't accept "it's good for the AI" as a good argument, because it merely means you need to strike faster than normal or wait until Construction. And it also doesn't stop you from pillaging them into the stone age....

 

[HiroHito]

protective of course.

 

[bonafide11]

In BTS, I think Imperialist's Settler bonus might be a little more useful than it was before because sometimes I like to spam settlers to claim land on another continent and then grant them independence. So I might build a few more settlers than before, but still not a ton...

 

[Adder]

Tough choice.. maybe Im a weird player but those are two of my favourite traits I love playing as Charlemagne.

I'd have to go with imperialistic, faster settlers are a nice thing to have even tough its a small bonus. Double the number of generals however is golden. Even when you do little war mongering that'll just mean you get a general out of a short war.

 

[HiroHito]

problem with imperialist is that you need to disable barbs to fully profit from the settlers bonus...

 

[L4zXX0r]

problem with imperialist is that you need to disable barbs to fully profit from the settlers bonus...

I disagree. I tend to send my settlers out early with at least one or two warriors. Then again, I play on noble, with normal barbarians, so it's not as bad. Raging barbs just makes me mad.

 

[Mr. Civtastic]

Protective is better but I just like Imperialistic better, surprisingly.

 

[kniteowl]

Imp = Privateers Beeline

I find it pretty awesome that you can generate GG points from Privateer Battles, too bad I can Lure my opponent's ships into my territory when I have the GW.

My biggest problem with Castles even with all the buffing it's gotten is that it obsoletes too early and I'd rather have the free GM thanks.

 

[Polycrates]

I quite like Protective, though I'd still call it a lower-end trait; the bonus to archers is really nice on Emperor-plus Raging Barbs, the drill bonus for gunpowder is very nice, and the city-defense/walls/castles thing is nice when you have to desperately defend a city because you've overextended or just been hit by surprise (and if you've never been forced into desperate defense at the city gates, you're probably playing at too low a level).

Imperialistic, on the other hand...
The GG bonus kinda forces you into constant warring just for the sake of it, regardless of whether it's currently expedient or not, and it really favours a meatgrinder approach to warring, which is hopelessly inefficient.
The settler bonus is okay I guess, but for getting more cities up and contributing more quickly, I'd rather have other traits' "new city" bonuses, like Creative's quick border pop, or Expansive's quick granaries and extra workers.

I'd probably put both of them above Industrious, though.

 

[Antilogic]

I've never cared for Industrious myself...I can build wonders pretty fast if I have the double-production resource in my lands, and I'd rather have cheaper factories later on with Organized and the reduced Civic upkeep cost over the cheap forges.

I remember the days when Expansive was constantly ripped on for being weak...