Is Protective the worst trait in the game?

Target MC

Bad Monarch
Joined
Nov 10, 2010
Messages
46
Location
USA
While we all have our tastes on which traits suit us the most in a given situation, I'm honestly not that surprised to see that Protective is quite often the worst trait in the game.

The reasons, quite obvious in fact. Those free City Garrison I and Drill I promotions may give you a slight edge in battle should your AI/human opponent not have siege weapons. But if they do, then those promotions hardly make any difference. Your units are too badly damaged to have those promotions give you any good outcome.

Back when Vanilla was the only game available I would quite often build Walls and Castles to stop the AI from blowing down my defenses quickly. But after watching a dozen experienced Civ IV players master the layout of the land and beat down the AI in sheer numbers, I quickly found that Walls and Castles aren't anything worth noting.

Of course, there are a few exceptions. Having a few Longbowman with a City Garrison I and Drill I promotion isn't as bad as it sounds. Protective could make a difference if your city is situated on a hill along with Longbowmen who hold City Garrison III. You only needed to promote those units twice, because City Garrison I was given to you for free. I guess it doesn't hurt to throw in the Drill I promotion, especially considering that Longbowmen already have a first strike even without Drill promotions. But all in all, this is one of the few times where Protective really helped me out. Because a Longbowman was fortified in a city situated on a hill, who already had the two promotions, it was difficult for enemies to defeat him if they didn't have siege weapons. He held up on his own pretty nicely.

I can't think of anything else where Protective is really anything beneficial. Walls and Castles, they sound good when your on the defensive right? Only that Walls (along with the Chichen Itza wonder) obsolete with Rifling, and Castles obsolete with Economies. If you held lets say, a ten city empire, and built Walls and Castles in every city, then you just wasted yourself a lot of time building something that is going to become obsolete fairly quickly.

Castles do however, give you a tiny amount of Espionage along with an additional trade route. But cmon, is that really worth noting?

Protective is only good for Archery units and Gunpowder units. By the mid-late game, you're often going to either be building lots of other types of units, or go for a peaceful win strategy. That is when Protective really starts to become next to useless. When I was playing such leaders as Mao Zedong and Wang Kon, I often felt that I was really only playing with one trait, instead of the two traits you would normally have otherwise. Even Tokugawa, who is known for having three free promotions for his Gunpowder units, is kind of difficult to manage, only because Protective is such a weak trait.

Protective is also the only trait in the game that gives you double production speed for two city improvements that both obsolete. With the exception of Monasteries, all other city improvements that are given double production speed for the appropriate traits are effective until the end of the game.

I'm not sure how Protective can even be considered with the likes of Financial, Expansive, Organized, or Creative. There's really no comparison.
 
protective is pretty weak. like you said, the drill promo is the best part. but faster castles means you can rush engineering and get some extra trade routes and espionage.

yeah protective blows.
 
I wouldn't bash on Castles if they would of made a meaningful difference like Granaries, Forges and Factories do.

The additional trade route never did too much for me, and the espionage increase is barely worth noting.
 
Protective is weak because it has no economical kickback at all like agressive.
The defensive promos are nice, but this means you have to let the AI enter your borders extensively in time and given some AI's proprensity to pillage (some AI's are XML coded to do a pillage war more than others), shutting ourselves behind walls just cripple the grown fat cottages.

In the past, before a certain patch, there was a trick than made protective interesting as a trait in a economical way. Based on overflowing hammers mechanics, the +100% multiplier meant if we whip a max OF with this strong multiplier(like 1 :hammer: away of wall completion), this OF (OverFlow) will be seen as base hammers for next build. What's the deal? Well, that means not only you got more hammers than expected due to the last modifier, but those hammers will underwent another multiplier for the present build. In a nutshell, you get a hell of free :hammers: .Since the patch, max OF is topped by twice the value in :hammers: of present build (the wall of castle); the rest is converted in gold. The OF doesn't bug as before too.
Also, this was a way to make lot of cash pre-currency.
And stone made the bug even more powerful along protective trait.

Nevertheless, protective has its fans in niche strategies.
Mainly espionage economy because ,if espionage is proceeded well taking into consideration all discounts, the value of tech is greatly dimished compared to a beaker investment. For instance, in a ideal game once, we discounted Civil Service tech to 1/6 of its beaker (science) cost. That's frigging huge!
So, if Great Wall built (necessary condition for a good espionage economy or Gilgamesh with his early courthouses (ziggurats)):

Castle will push further and empire-wide the power of espionage (this means the first multiplier except Scotyard) by a multiplier of 25%. In addition, you get a free early trade route. Yes, Engineering is not often looked a good tech to research (because the AI loves to get it fast and it short-circuit its trade value) and castles are short-lived, but in some exceptions, it works marvellously along Nationhood (another +25%). Notable example of the power of espionage: these extremely vicious always war deity games. Espionage is the only way to catch up the densely bonused AI's and not get overridded by super advanced units.

And, since we got the Great Wall, we get +100% great general points (GPP) in all battles that occur in our culture. So protective defenders in cities + GWall, you get it. Thus, in well-placed hill cities without cottages, you reap lots of GPP.

In a nutshell, you combine both GPP bonuses and espionage because protective ticks the player to take this path because of inherent bonuses from protective trait.

Sure, the Great Wall is not a wonder you can get all the time, and given how early you must get it before losing it to a third party, it stunts your expansion. But this a path proposed and boosted by protective trait. Of course, this is not a necessary path to victory.
 
I don't think you will find many on here disagreeing with you on this. In fact, I think it was voted 'worst' in a poll 1-2 years ago.

Sense it is bad, lets see if we can come up with some positive examples of its use?

1) It meshes well with certain empires and units. China's UU the Cho-Ku-Nu is an Crossbowman and benefits from the PRO trait. The same for Native American's Totem Pole.
2) One might not build walls&castles much normally. We might not build many even when we have Stone. If we are PRO AND have Stone, then going for the extra Trade Route becomes a no-brainer. Especially, in cities with The Temple of Artemis and/or Scotland Yard already built.
3) If using 'Unrestricted Leaders' (which I tend to do), then Spain's Citadels can be built much faster for you to start gaining their +5xp on your seige units.
The Celts Dun can also be built faster. This becomes on important Highland maps or Donut maps with Hills in the center.
4) When you star the game with No Horse and No Copper and are quickly looking for an effective defender before 'Raging Barbarians' start to appear.
5) Any no-resourse start, including No Iron and No Ivory.
6) It will make certain units better defenders. Obviously, that is what it is for. However, some units can't get the City Garrison Promotion, but can, if upgraded from an earlier unit, MachineGunners, for example. A CityGarrison3Drill1 Archer(or Xbow, or Grenadier) that is upgraded to a CG3D1 MachineGunner, then Airported into a newly captured city, defends Very well.
7) When capturing new cities, one must rebuild all the culture buildings. This will take some time to rebuild up the cities defense. PRO leaders can do this quickly with walls&castles.
8) Some mods (such as the PIG mod) have improved the PRO trait to include building Security Bureaus double speed too. It also permits Sentry with Drill3, just like Combat3 permits. In which case your archers would be partially there. Driil3&Sentry LBs would make great spotters on hills or HillForts.
9) As Tachywaxon mentioned a strategy with The Great Wall. One can a further advantage if one is also Imperialistic and gaining another 100%GG.

Is PRO still the worst trait?
Yea probably, but alot depends on the Game Difficulty, Game Speed, UU UB, and other factors like access to Stone or any unit resourse.
When you get a leader randomly, one must find ways to benefit from the traits provided.
 
Play the map, not the leader.

Logic gap?

In considering the map, the leader can play a significant role.

2) One might not build walls&castles much normally. We might not build many even when we have Stone. If we are PRO AND have Stone, then going for the extra Trade Route becomes a no-brainer. Especially, in cities with The Temple of Artemis and/or Scotland Yard already built.

Scotland Yard benefits Espionage production but doesn't add base EP, so I can't see the +25% from the castle being of use.
 
Logic gap?

In considering the map, the leader can play a significant role.

No. Putting the main role for playing according to the leader is not as good as playing according to what the map gave to you.

Are you necessarily going to war just for milking Imperialistic GGP?

But yes using at its best leader traits is good, but consider the map before. Some trait are indeed versatile whatever the map, but other traits are more specific and not always good to milk them.
 
I disagree. It is all in how you play. Granted, Protective is not the best of traits.But I tend to use the following strategy:

Archers and Longbows straight out of the barracks also get Veteran 1 and Woodsman 1. With these promotions, they become extremely versatile plus the Protective free promos. I often use Longbows to protect large stacks, if not even to attack! The enormous advantage of using this strategy with Protective is that as soon as you capture a city, the city is "locked", meaning that with your "offensive" Longbows in the city, nothing but a counterattack will be able to retake it. And with the full force of your army moving on, no such counterattack will come.
 
No. Putting the main role for playing according to the leader is not as good as playing according to what the map gave to you.

Are you necessarily going to war just for milking Imperialistic GGP?

But yes using at its best leader traits is good, but consider the map before. Some trait are indeed versatile whatever the map, but other traits are more specific and not always good to milk them.

That's a very abstract principle, I'm not sure where to draw the line between leader considerations and what the map demands. By leader I really mean civilization, which would include Unique Unit and perhaps Unique Building considerations. If we are Egypt (with horses, map dependent) and our neighbor is close by, a rush might be in order. Coastal starts with Financial have also been cited for certain gambits like grabbing a religion.

I'm not mentioning anything new, just trying to understand your meaning.
 
^^^I don't think "play the map" is abstract at all. It's pretty much a golden rule among very good players. Basically the same as saying "play the hand that's dealt you". "Play the Map" considers resources, food, strategic resources, proximity to AI, number of AI, etc.etc.. Traits come far second to those considerations. Once you realize this important tenet, your game will improve dramatically. As for traits, it's just a matter of adjusting them or using the best according to the hand you are dealt, but sometimes traits or at least certain ones can be rendered almost useless or of very little gain in certain situations. You can win with any leader if you "play the map".

As for UU/UBs they are by far the last thing I will consider and they are often completely irrelevant to a game. UBs in general provide very little advantage to any game except maybe a couple of top ones like the Sac Altar, but I still don't base any kind of strategy on it. Many UUs are completely useless and an afterthought really in most games. Sure, UUs like WCs are awesome if you get horse nearby/timely- that is, "get horse" ...."play the map".

Basing any kind of strategy at T0 on a UU/UB is a invitation to a fail party.
 
While we all have our tastes on which traits suit us the most in a given situation, I'm honestly not that surprised to see that Protective is quite often the worst trait in the game.

The reasons, quite obvious in fact. Those free City Garrison I and Drill I promotions may give you a slight edge in battle should your AI/human opponent not have siege weapons. But if they do, then those promotions hardly make any difference. Your units are too badly damaged to have those promotions give you any good outcome.

OTOH, you're one promotion away from Drill II with it's collateral damage reduction, which does help out quite a bit against siege - both in defending cities, and in covering your offensive stack against counter attacks. Of course it *can* be overcome by enough siege, but it still forces the opponent to bring more than the usual amount lest he waste it all to no avail.

The real problem is as Tachywaxon said: it doesn't directly help your economy, especially the early economy where it's most important. A few indirect benefits maybe (hammers saved by needing or replacing fewer units) but it doesn't really compare well to the other traits.
 
The 2 chinese leaders are both PRO and their Cho-Ku's rock quite harsh, but I guess they'd also do that without PRO ... ^^
 
Approaching the map as the priority is definitely the strongest approach. People can win high level games without any traits, so a trait that gives meager bonuses isn't exactly a hindrance at that point.

Protective is an odd trait, in that it does very little to help along a solid position while it can bail you out of some bad ones. Prior to the gold overflow nerf it was arguably among the best traits in the game; one of firaxis/failaxis' greatest patch travesties was to bug overflow entirely and never fix it, leaving protective in shambles compared to 3.17 and earlier.

What it *will* give you, consistently, is an extra promotion on military units that don't need strategic resources. Draft protective rifles are weaker than aggressive rifles, but still stronger than any other; you can easily take cover, shock, and pinch at 2 xp which draft units can manage easily enough. The drill line also allows you to shred loads of inferior units, which can be useful if you do manage an actual tech lead with the trait.

Where it really shines though are those tough early game defensive situations where a regular archer struggles but a cg II drill I archer does not struggle. Staying alive is useful and PRO can grant that when other traits can't. It's like a buffer trait in that it only comes into its own in terms of value when things go poorly.

Walls and castles don't truly obsolete until your OPPONENTS get gunpowder rifling btw. You can't build them any more after you get the requisite techs, but the ones you've built still apply until opposition gets the gunpowder/rifle units. Castles give their econ bonus as long as you don't have economics, which depending on whether you're playing for corps or state property might not be a serious priority anyway.

Mostly, however, it's just there to keep you alive early and give a little oomph later with the gunpowder. VS the AI you CAN milk the CG promo you get too and you should when doing so trims enemy numbers with low casualties.
 
^^^I don't think "play the map" is abstract at all. It's pretty much a golden rule among very good players. Basically the same as saying "play the hand that's dealt you". "Play the Map" considers resources, food, strategic resources, proximity to AI, number of AI, etc.etc..

Bit of a semantic nitpick here, but:

What does that actually mean, particularly when it's said outside the context of having an actual map to look at? Nothing other than to wait for the map before making plans, and this is what makes it abstract. It's the details after the map is seen - what strategies having specific resources, terrain or AI proximities (and who those AIs are) implies - that are tangible.

It's important advice, absolutely; and being abstract doesn't diminish from that. But, semantically at least, I'd still say it's abstract.
 
^^^I don't think "play the map" is abstract at all. It's pretty much a golden rule among very good players.

That could make it obscenely abstract, depending upon the gap between high level players and newbies.


As for UU/UBs they are by far the last thing I will consider and they are often completely irrelevant to a game. UBs in general provide very little advantage to any game except maybe a couple of top ones like the Sac Altar, but I still don't base any kind of strategy on it. Many UUs are completely useless and an afterthought really in most games. Sure, UUs like WCs are awesome if you get horse nearby/timely- that is, "get horse" ...."play the map".

I really can't agree, in fact the presence of top tier Unique Buildings and break out UU's just lends credence to the importance of leader selection.

Basing any kind of strategy at T0 on a UU/UB is a invitation to a fail party.

Ever heard of Quechua rushing?

Approaching the map as the priority is definitely the strongest approach. People can win high level games without any traits, so a trait that gives meager bonuses isn't exactly a hindrance at that point.

Agreed, in that player skill can trump leader/civilization bonuses. Of course give that same player (that can win at high levels without traits) a leader and civilization of their choice, and watch them obliterate where before they merely survived.
 
Ever heard of Quechua rushing?

Ever heard of "isolated start"? :p

Even in semi-isolation, Quechua-rush might not be the best plan; particularly if there's plenty of space for peaceful REX with a little espionage (or strong diplomacy) to break the trade caps. Likewise, if the distance to the nearest opponent is large enough that he's likely to have axes or chariots by the time you get your Quechua stack to him it's probably best to scrub that idea.

Admittedly, you can cook the map a bit by rerolling the starts where your basic plan won't fly - and in this way, somewhat break the applicability of "play the map" - but it's not the default assumption.
 
But it is an option that you would consider as Inca, even from turn zero you might start spamming Quechua or building a barracks. If you do end up being in isolation then you will have set your expansion efforts back a bit, but there is always risk to any strategy.

It's not something I do, but from what I understand it is feasible.
 
I don't like Protective at all. I've yet to build a wall or castle and the promotions are nothing to write home about. However, I pick leaders based not on their traits, but on my opinions of their respective civs historically. The ancient western world (Gilgamesh and Hammurabi) and Native Americans (Sitting Bull) are my favs, with Gilgamesh being my top choice (first epic hero and Sumer being the first major civ). You'll notice that two of the three of my favs are Protective, which is really a drag. Oh well, maybe I'll give Hammurabi a go.
 
Protective could be useful with understricted leaders->spain->cheap wall/citadel. But really nothing to write home about.
 
Top Bottom