philosophical trait not so good?

[Black_Pegasus]

lately ive been feeling that the philosophical trait isnt really all that good...i mean sure it gives +100% gp points but you can get a simple wonder and do all of this...plus although great people can change the game i feel the philsophical trait can be done without because all you have to do is throw down some wonders that fit your strategy and maybe even the ub that some civs have...agree dissagre??

[Balderstrom]

And you can get that Wonder still (The Parthenon - which is only +50%), for over +150% GP, and then run Pacificism for +250% GP... and the National Epic +100% GP (which I believe is just that city)
So 250% across your Empire, and 350% in the main GPS city (Great-Person-Specialist/Economy City).

So how many Great People will you churn out THEN ? :-)

[Dark_Jedi06]

True, building wonders will get you plenty of GP, however with Philosophical those wonders will get you even more, no? Also, wonders take time and energy to build before you're evening reaping those benefits. For example:

With Philosophical and say Stonehenge already built, you're getting +4 GP.

Without the trait you're only getting +2 and you need to build another wonder to bump that up to +4.

In the time to build that second wonder you've accumulated a greater amount of GP, not to mention that once it's built you'll be getting +8. Considering the powerful effects of having Great People, especially early on, I'd hardly say that Philosophical isn't that good.

[mystikmind2005]

Also if your playing a highly challenging, survive by the skin of your teeth difficulty level then you can forget about building any wonders! It would be better that wonders did not even exist in that situation!

[JujuLautre]

You'll get some enemies by telling that philosophical is weak

[spur390]

Philosophical will increase your chances of getting a great person at point in your research where you can bulb a religion tech in a game and get a huge influx of cash money.

[Napalm102]

I'm not 100% sure how GPP's are generated but I think every time you get a great person (by normal means, not from tech), the number of GPP for next one is doubled, which means that for philosophical civ the first gp costs half of what it would cost for non philosophical one, beyond that you are on equal footing. So your second gp costs as much as first gp for non philosophical civ. Which ultimatelly means in a given game you have a one extra great person above anyone else. Is that correct?

[fed1943]

No, it is not correct; but also it is not correct you have double.

Best regards,

[sanjay_111]

No one mentioned cheap (half priced) universities. I think they would really help research.

Also, assuming it is a toss up between industrious (Gandhi in vanilla) vs philosophical (Gandhi in BTS), I can tell u, building wonders is very easy with industrious trait. If you have marble / stone you can build virtually any wonder you want. I am yet to play BTS so cannot say if + 100% GP points and cheaper universities will compensate easy building of wonders.

I think they will because there are always aggressive civs planning to attack you and if you give up wonder building and instead focus on getting ur univs / GPs and also research military techs faster and build defenses, it will help the game.

Will know next week when I get the BTS.

[Refar]

Originally Posted by Black_Pegasus

lately ive been feeling that the philosophical trait isnt really all that good...i mean sure it gives +100% gp points but you can get a simple wonder and do all of this...plus although great people can change the game i feel the philsophical trait can be done without because all you have to do is throw down some wonders that fit your strategy and maybe even the ub that some civs have...agree dissagre??

Besides the simple fact that you can have PHIL + those wonders... PHIL kicks in right at the start of the game, while the wonders have to be built first. And those Booster-Wonders aren't even the very early ones... (Aestetics for Parthenon...)
The power of PHIL is not in getting a couple more GP over the course of the game (which is of course nice as well ). It's geting those GP early - when you need them the most, and where the benefits they provide are the biggest.

And then there is a cheap university (which is worth 100 compared to say a cheap Barracks for saving 25)

[Black_Pegasus]

yes i allready know all these points...in fact i love the philosophical trait when im playing a one city challenge or a later era game from the start...but i just dont find it useful with an ancient era start and the gp... not so special...i know they give you HUGE bennefits but i feel the every occasional one you get without philosophical is better...and personaly i dont like the light bulbing method because later on the techs are harder to get so i make all of my specialists(except for a few to construct their special building such as the prophet and scientist)to be specialists and yes i guess i do agree that it does give me a huge bonus especially scientifical...

[Balderstrom]

@ Black Pegasus, I suppose it really depends on your playstyle. A number of threads discuss favorite or least favorite traits. I suppose if the end goal "Monty Haul/number crunching" then you'd just play leaders that the veterans claim are the best trait combinations.

I tend to pick a leader and play him/her for at least a couple of games, and then play someone else. I imagine when I get to the point where some of the Vet's are at, I might enjoy the "RandomCiv" - that a number of them recommend.
It also seems to me, the Devs worked at balancing LeaderTraits + UU + UB, moreso than just attempting to balance each individual trait between each other.

You'll also find some trait combinations that don't exist, likely for balance?
I don't see any leaders w/ Philosophical/Industrious, or Aggressive/Protective... I imagine there are other combos that don't exist or are rare too.

[Black_Pegasus]

Originally Posted by Balderstrom

@ Black Pegasus, I suppose it really depends on your playstyle. A number of threads discuss favorite or least favorite traits. I suppose if the end goal "Monty Haul/number crunching" then you'd just play leaders that the veterans claim are the best trait combinations.

I tend to pick a leader and play him/her for at least a couple of games, and then play someone else. I imagine when I get to the point where some of the Vet's are at, I might enjoy the "RandomCiv" - that a number of them recommend.
It also seems to me, the Devs worked at balancing LeaderTraits + UU + UB, moreso than just attempting to balance each individual trait between each other.

You'll also find some trait combinations that don't exist, likely for balance?
I don't see any leaders w/ Philosophical/Industrious, or Aggressive/Protective... I imagine there are other combos that don't exist or are rare too.

there is no civ with industious and philosophical cus that would overpower the gp...but there is aggresive and protective...tokugawa of japan has it...

[Balderstrom]

AH right, missed that one. but still thats ONE leader with a given combo.

[Refar]

There is exactly ONE leader with any combo.

With the above mentioned exception of PHI/IND

[Yxklyx]

I just started trying out Philosophical with China. My GP managing skills aren't that great yet. I generally don't research religious techs and get them later from the other Civs in trades. Anyway, I built Stonehenge and shortly thereafter got a Great Prophet. I could have light-bulbed Meditation - seemed a waste since it's such a cheap tech and since I haven't founded a religion I settled him. Was that a good idea? I'm thinking now of beelining to Philosophy so that I can adopt Pacifism.

[MyOtherName]

Originally Posted by Refar

There is exactly ONE leader with any combo.

With the above mentioned exception of PHI/IND

Isn't charismatic/creative also missing? And exactly one other missing combination (which I can't remember)?

[Refar]

Yea you are right sorry - the othr is PRO/ORG

But still every trait that is there has one leder

[Balderstrom]

I think I read that before, but it never really sunk in. I suppose the game would play better if the traits weren't so fine-lined like that. Now I see why some people like unrestricted leaders. If there were more leaders per Civ, they wouldn't have to pigeon-hole the traits so much.

[TheMeInTeam]

Philosophical is an extremely versatile/useful trait. Solid GPP bonus and nice cheap building too (faster univ's and oxford!). Lots of people say use it for SE but it benefits ANY type of game, since even with CE you want a GP farm and there are lots of ways to make use of great people regardless of what you're doing.