What's the worst trait? (Rate the trait)

If I did a poll about which civ trait is best, almost everyone would vote for Agricultural and I would'nt gain anything by that. So what do you consider the worst trait? When you post, tell why you think a particular trait is the worst one.

I voted Expansionist, because goody huts get gobbled up so fast that scouts are pretty much only letting you see the map better and rarely pop good techs. The trait is pretty much useless beyond the AA.

Arghh that's tough. I'd be inclined to agree with Expansionist as it can be so useless sometimes, but on the other hand, some HOF games depended on this trait. It's similar to seafaring in some ways, though seafaring does give the commerce boost.

Anyway I voted seafaring. Too dependent on the sea.

but seafaring also gives an extra movement point in the sea. thats better than expansionist by far

I voted Military. Ok cheap barrracks and more chance of promotions but its not that useful in terms of getting ahead in the game.

Most of the games I play are GOTMs, in which Expansionist really is the worst trait, as most of the huts are taken out.

I was camparing Expansionist and Seafaring as both are quite specific in their usefulness. All the others will generally be of moderate use in the vast majority of games.

Expansionist can be quite powerful if used right but it is never useful for the entire game only the AA which is over before it starts (mine anyways). Hey Overseer make up your mind you said seafaring in another thread

I tend to favor expansionist, free scout (they're pretty important early on when it counts) and the occasional tech/settler/free city again early on when it counts. Doesn't matter much later in the game, though - but getting that extra at the start pays off exponentially.

Never played religious, but I understand that there is a limited or no period of anarchy when flipping governments. Since I like to hit Republic and stay there, seems kinda like a limited benefit.

What's the big deal with agricultural?

Agricultural gives you extra food in your cites & desert tiles plus you get cheap ducts & hospitals.

Ok - I knew about the ducts and I realized the extra food thing for the most part, but personally - I don't think that's much of a benefit.

I find that cities generally grow too fast anyway for improvements to get a benefit along with happiness stuff like luxes and temples and the like, and I wind up with a lot of unhappy people if they get big fast.

Not much eh? I usually get 4-5 more cities in the land grab with it(on on large map)

Imo

6. Militaristic - 7. Expansionistic - 8. Seafaring

On an archipelago map, seafaring may be a winner because of the greater naval movement and survival chance on sea tiles leading to early contacts with trade of techs and maps moving you on. But on continental and especially pangea it is more or less useless. In every aspect, as outlined by others, it's only a partial trait.

I'm intrigued about the reasons some voted religious. Properly used, religious is one of the strongest traits - cheap temples are like having a lux hooked up with the fantastic bonus of cultural expansion in the landgrab phaze (Celts ). Religious civs are the ONLY civs that can realistically change government if the state of the game demands a change of strategy - from demo to fascism/communism and then back. Another bonus is the lesser chance of rioting.

I suspect those who say religious aren't using its strengths? It's a bit like choosing scientific, setting science to 0% and not building libraries and unis or militaristic for a cultural victory...

It depends.

Expansionist can rock on chieftain, where it can enable you to pop all AA techs from goody huts. This can be a game winner; it is for example an essential part of SirPleb's fast diplomatic win on chieftain. On higher levels, normally the AI gets to the goody huts before your scouts do, making the expansionist trait basically useless. The map size is also a factor in this.

Seafaring is good on an archipelago map, especially the 3 move curraghs there can give the early contacts that can make you the trading power of the world. This is more important on higher levels, because on lower levels you can self-research.

By contrast, some traits are good on any map, on any level, such as agricultural or industrious.

Anyway, my vote to worst trait goes to militaristic, because (1) raxes are not very expensive, so half price does not give me that much, (2) I'm not going to need that many raxes anyway, and (3) in a game that is very heavy on combat I'm going to get enough leaders and armies even if I'm not militaristic just by efficient leader farming. I even doubt if in AW it is important to be militaristic or not. But I've never played AW, so I let that conclusion to one of the experts.

All of the traits can be desirable under certain circumstances, depending on your game plan; I should mention that I rarely play random civs or settings, so I have a pretty good idea of what I'm going to be doing in a given game.
I voted Religious in the poll because to me this seems least adaptable, though Expansionist could turn out to be worse on an watery archipelago map.

Nergal said:

I voted Military. Ok cheap barrracks and more chance of promotions but its not that useful in terms of getting ahead in the game.

Click to expand...

I agree, I've never had much use out of the extra promotions, and barracks are cheap enough already, I never build walls. The only thing that makes this somewhat nice is the cheap harbors, it allows you to et up commerce fishing towns more easily.

Sweetchuck said:

I find that cities generally grow too fast anyway for improvements to get a benefit along with happiness stuff like luxes and temples and the like, and I wind up with a lot of unhappy people if they get big fast.

Click to expand...

I've never understand this attitude, how can a city grow too fast? If a few of your cities grow large, and you don't feel like wasting commerce on your whole empire, just to keep only those few big cities happy, use specialist in them. Specialist will both not be unhappy and they slow down further growth.
But better is to just turn those fast growers into settler and worker pumps.

If most of your core cities are about the same size, what you gain from the high population, is more than what you spend on the lux slider.

Either way, I've read this "my cities grow to fast" complaint before, but never understood it.

Its a kind of like, not accepting a salary raise to avoid paying more tax.
Sure with a higher income, you'll have to pay more tax, but you'll still get more money in the end. Its not like your net income decreases if you get a high enough raise.

I usually play with barbarians off and that's half of expansionist's benefit. Also, I'd rather be seafaring on a pangea then expansionist on an archepelago. Of course if you're Portugal, you're both.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nergal
I voted Military. Ok cheap barrracks and more chance of promotions but its not that useful in terms of getting ahead in the game.

I agree, I've never had much use out of the extra promotions, and barracks are cheap enough already, I never build walls. The only thing that makes this somewhat nice is the cheap harbors, it allows you to et up commerce fishing towns more easily.

Click to expand...

Barracks are fairly expensive at 40 shields because it is the kind of structure you need immediately and in reasonable numbers, even for a builder strat. Also quick promotions + ability to do early wars = quick MGL. And an early army is a game winner. Cheaps harbors also are very interresting.

Expansionist can rock on chieftain, where it can enable you to pop all AA techs from goody huts. This can be a game winner; it is for example an essential part of SirPleb's fast diplomatic win on chieftain. On higher levels, normally the AI gets to the goody huts before your scouts do, making the expansionist trait basically useless. The map size is also a factor in this.

Click to expand...

I usually play random civ and random settings (except the size I often set to standard) and I got my best results with exp civs on maps without barbarians.
Huts are just random bonus but the real strength of this trait is the ability to make early contacts. Never losing a scout is fair compensation for the asence of the huts. When I get an exp civ on pelago , Ok I got the worst trait for that map but at least I start with granaries (very useful if i am alone on an island).

Religious? maybe the worst but still, it synergizes very well with arab exp trait or egyptian chariot.

Finally I wont vote. IMO there are no bad traits, there are just bad combos: mil/exp , sea/exp , sea/rel ,...

It's a bit like choosing scientific, setting science to 0% and not building libraries

Click to expand...

I did it, it was my most crushing victory at DG level
Sometimes the right to research immediately IW is the biggest asset of this trait...

Some good observations have already been made in this thread. Thinktank for instance is spot on in my opinion in what he says about expansionist.

And I completely understand Mursi lives not voting. The traits are well balanced. Agricultural is the strongest. The rest depends a lot. I agree with Nergal and MAS about militaristic. But if Mursi lives is an early warmongerer, he might find a lot of benefit in the Militaristic trait.

Personally, I'm a real fan of the Seafaring trait. I find it hard to play without it. But that's probably a matter of personal liking and playing style. Although I nearly always play 80% water maps, and it is a good trait there without a doubt. It doesn't need to be Archipelago, I mostly play continents.

So I don't think there is a weak trait, but if I have to pick one, for me it would be between Commercial, Industrious and Militaristic. Militaristic for the reasons mentioned by Nergal and MAS, and I'm not an early warmongerer. Industrious and Commercial mainly because they don't guide me in any specific strategic direction.

In the end my vote went to Industrious. Not quite the textbook answer, I know. My points:
- Other traits can compensate for the lack of worker speed by giving better opportunities for acquiring workers.
- No strategic direction.
What I mean by the first bit is: traits like Expansionist and Seafaring give you a better early tech rate and contacts, making it much easier to buy workers from the AI. And good warmongerers get workers from conquering towns.

I would like to say more here, but looking at the clock, I need to go to work. Can I come back about this? It's a good thread, so far. Well done, Overseer.

Thank you, Optional. I'm glad I created this thread, I think the more opinions and discussion about the game is good for everyone who plays it. I think that overall the traits balance pretty well, but some have more general benefits and others have more specific benefits. Depending on play style, each trait adds or subtracts. I like Scientific best, the plotting over what the free tech is going to be energizes my game, and it's like a box of chocolates, you never know what you're gonna get. But free tech is always good. Agricultural is my other favorite, it cushions a bad start location. The extra food and the fact that deserts aren't useless is a huge general benefit. So I guess I like general traits better than specific ones.

I have to go with Religious as the worst. I'm pretty rotten with culture to begin with, and I just don't build much of it. So cheap temples and caths aren't a very big help for me. And I can't recall a single game where I changed governments more than once, so it's not a help to me there, either.

I have to agree, though, that the traits are very well balanced. Obviously, Agri is very strong. I (may be one of the few who) happen to like Militaristic and Commercial. Raxes aren't that expensive to begin with, but I like starting with archers for that ultra-early archer rush and barb farming. Commercial is a bit of a slow starter and doesn't really start to shine until somewhat later in the game. However, the reduced corruption is a big help and I think I wind up with a signficantly larger productive core and semi-core than I would have otherwise. When I play commercial, I find that I really don't need very many courthouses, so I can spend those shields on military units instead.