Trait Rankings

[ariosto]

If we rate traits depending on winrate, the player’s skill should also be taken into consideration. For example, @drewisfat rates ORG as the worst trait because it starts to matter only when the player has a lot of cities and "the game is already decided". EXP is also a "win-more trait". At the same time, IMP is good because it can save you on some hardcore maps when you can settle one more city in the early game because of cheaper settlers. Those are fair points for an expirienced player, but for me, as someone, who only started to beat Deity recently, it’s the other way around. If I have 8–10 cities, the game is not yet decided at all, and I still want a good trait to help me. And I won’t win those hard maps whether I play IMP or not. That means, trait rankings should differ from player to player and change when one improves their skill. There is also personal preference, of course.

My list of traits:
S - FIN
A - EXP
B - IND CRE
C - CHA PHI IMP ORG
D - SPI AGG PRO

 

[Mr_Trotsky]

I more or less feel like this Ariosto. Although I find it’s getting the first three cities (with horses) or four cities that are the issue. If I can get those, I feel pretty confident of being able to beat the map more often than not. Consequently, IMP has gone from being a trait I didn’t value a huge amount on immortal to one that I value very highly - probably fourth after PHI, FIN and CHA - because it mitigates against the most frequent cause of my losses. I also find that giving promotions to a good number of units in an early rush really helps it keep on rolling. A few combat three horse archers can do a lot.

That being said, I think more of combos of traits than traits in isolation. I would want at least one that saved early hammers to speed up early expansion because that’s the hardest part for me. I prefer Pacal’s traits to Mansa’s even if - take on its own - I rate SPI higher than EXP.

This leads me to prefer PHI to FIN. Essentially, if the early expansion doesn’t work out too well, I find PHI is better for making a lot from a little. An early academy or maths/philosophy bulb gives more beakers early on than FIN does even if FIN wins out in the medium to long term. Great merchants also help with making up for a hammer deficit in a way that FIN can’t. Also, FIN is dull. It makes the game easier - which I do like - but pretty much every other trait allows you to do things you couldn’t otherwise do. I guess FIN allows you to try different gambits - like medieval warfare - but I’m not good/brave enough to try that when I don’t have to.

Finally, Drew puts FIN top because, although PHI and IND can be better, you need a plan. But Drew very much strikes me as a man with a plan! And his descriptions of what you can do with (say) PRO also require a plan. Without a plan it is very much the worst trait.

 

[lymond]

Oooh...how did a miss a good trait brawl!

I'm amending drew's list to place my ultimate trait ranking:

A - FIN, PHI
B - IND, CRE
C - EXP, IMP, CHA
D - ORG, AGG
F - PRO

I agree that you really can't go wrong with FIN, but I'd say PHI is the best trait of all. However, one has to know how to use it, and it is the best for high-level play.

CRE has nice flexibility no matter the level - also, at the moment I can think of one leader with this trait that I do not like. IND is another high-level trait that works well in the hands of someone who can really leverage it.

EXP (my favorite trait) and IMP are very solid traits that work well combined with other good traits. For example, I really dislike Joao's trait pairing but Pacal and Pete are awesome. I'd say EXP is very close to a B-level trait. IMP I've come to appreciate more over the years, even though it has had a bad wrap as a player trait, while probably being the best AI trait in the game. The bonuses are not powerful but they are both quite useful.
(edit: oops ) CHA - A very nice trait to have both economically and militarily. Just its passive bonus is so nice to have.

ORG - I think this trait has always been probably the most controversial. Possibly due to its value being a bit situational. However, one can't knock the value of the cheap buildings, when applicable, and the lowered maintenance can really factor into certain games. AGG has its uses for sure and has a couple of synergies with certain leaders, but otherwise meh.

PRO - bad...just a very bad. Whenever I have a decent leader like say Gilgs it just feels like I have one trait. It's no coincidence that some of the very worst leaders have this trait.

 

[Fippy]

Omg you forgot the most interesting trait with CHA
..omg omg and SPI too.

 

[lymond]

Omg you forgot the most interesting trait with CHA
..omg omg and SPI too.

Fixed An egregious oversight!

 

[sylvanllewelyn]

@ariosto
Sorry but I have disagree that philosophical goes to grade 'C'. The rankings vary but it belongs to top 50% for sure.

Personally I think protective is underrated. It is only useful on deity. More archers is not the same as stronger archers. I want to repel their early attacks without losing units and giving away "war success". This makes it easier to sign peace treaty. Please build cities on hills. Horse with no copper is more common than you think and I am not defending with chariots.

 

[Orion Pax]

I kind of love that everyone here has agreed to indulge in this conversation, however many times it's happened before. Because it never gets old, IMHO.

Stray observations:
One main trend I'm curious to see is ORG being rated so low, not because I love it, but because I feel like older posts I read had it up near the top.

This "S" category that gets use seems rather like the amps that go to 11 in This is Spinal Tap . But I mean hey.

 

[Fool's Gold]

One main trend I'm curious to see is ORG being rated so low, not because I love it, but because I feel like older posts I read had it up near the top.

That's one thing I've been wondering about myself. EDIT: When did the paradigm shift?

 

[Fippy]

Well back then deity players were rarer, a famous one (Obsolete) really really liked his wonders and settled specialists..so he didn't build cottages and stated that saved gpt can be > FIN.
Now it's more like "ORG doesn't speed up empire building, there are many other ways to create gold".
Games are often decided before factories, CHs are not popular buildings and lighthouses are nice but ofc not needed in all cities.

 

[Snowbird]

That's one thing I've been wondering about myself. EDIT: When did the paradigm shift?

When the two move armies became the main thing, no? Cuir break does not mesh well with courthouses, and afterward the player is probably big enough not to care about them or actual traits at all.

In general the faster the game (earlier win date) the worse it is for all buildings.

 

[Orion Pax]

That seems right. Buildings seem like they’ve gone way down in stock for good reason. And that’s one of ORG’s big bonuses. And they aren’t early buildings except lighthouse, which you don’t need in many cities.

If you do unrestricted leaders, pairing an ORG leader with Sumeria has some synergy. Your Ziggurats come quick & cheap. But even then the bonus really isn’t as good as just getting a bit more commerce from FIN on a couple tiles.

 

[sampsa]

In general the faster the game (earlier win date) the worse it is for all buildings.

Exactly this. When it was better understood how the human player can overwhelm even deity AI by building units to win conquest/domination quickly, the value of many buildings collapsed. ORG doesn't help much to get there, and what it gives once you get there (like cheaper courthouses) is already irrelevant to winning the game.

 

[Fippy]

ORG just becomes much better on fractal / island maps.
One of the better traits in isolation too.
Still cannot match FIN cos that's silly overpowered when half of the tiles in cities are water..but when costs become your biggest worry, and you cannot extract gold from AIs, i would rather have ORG than a couple faster granaries with EXP.

 

[Orion Pax]

Totally. Curious to hear if folks’ rankings are any different for Space Race victories? I guess ORG for example has more time to give benefit but still feels like win harder to me.

 

[coanda]

Totally. Curious to hear if folks’ rankings are any different for Space Race victories? I guess ORG for example has more time to give benefit but still feels like win harder to me.

At least for me, the "easy" way to do Space Race is just play it like Domination up until I've got enough good land, then peace out to Alpha Centauri. And for a game like that, my priorities wouldn't shift at all - the tricky part of the game is the same regardless of whether I'm going to eventually settle back.

A pacifist Space Race game certainly changes my thinking on some bits of game balance though.

 

[Orion Pax]

At least for me, the "easy" way to do Space Race is just play it like Domination up until I've got enough good land, then peace out to Alpha Centauri. And for a game like that, my priorities wouldn't shift at all - the tricky part of the game is the same regardless of whether I'm going to eventually settle back.

A pacifist Space Race game certainly changes my thinking on some bits of game balance though.

Yeah I guess I was intending more non-conquest-based Space Race, as I often do. I think many of the rankings outlined by folks still stand to be sure. But it’s interesting to me to have to think a bit more long term to see if any traits pay off differently. Though early advantages do still carry extra weight.

 

[civac]

Under the conditions stated by drewisfat ORG is not good. Under different conditions it can be very strong. (One key factor is map size.)

 

[Mr_Trotsky]

I’m no great fan of ORG but, based on Drew’s conditions, a significant factor in how you rate it, is how often you think fractal produces a map script where the game is determined on your continent alone (eg pangea, inland sea or continents but when your continent has four of the AI).

I don’t know the answer to that but I play almost exclusively fractal (and NC games) and my last five games have been three semi-iso, isolation and continents with me on the four civ continent. ORG would have been at least decent in all of those and in semi-iso with Cathy perhaps one of the best traits (if I’d not tried to play peacefully and died).

Based on this limited sample size, my impression is that the win harder criticism - while true on a pangea - is perhaps overstated if you’re talking about fractal. I also get the impression that a lot of people mainly play pangea, which I never choose. Don’t get me wrong, I like a pangea, I just don’t want to know it’s a pangea on turn 0.

 

[Nick723]

My alternative trait rankings….

Ranked not by civ 4 value, but by real life value (or how much I value I associate to these).

1. Industrious. A universally positive trait, hard to describe someone as industrious in a negative fashion. Don’t we all want to be industrious?

2. Charismatic. Inspirational, creating religious like devotion. But can apply in a positive or negative sense, depending on what the individual is espousing.

3. Protective. Now i have a family, I think this is a positive quality. So long as you’re not over protective!

4. Creative. Not something I am, but I would love to be.

5. Organised. Positive and negative. Has connotations with being a bit boring.

6. Philosophical. A thinker. Airs of pragmatism but maybe head in the clouds.

7. Expansive. Growth can be a dirty word these days. Could also mean verbose. Neither are that positive

8. Financial. Who wants to be / likes a banker? No one

9. Spiritual. To me this is Gwyneth Paltrow, yoga and ‘I’m not religious but I am spiritual’. Not my crowd!

10. Imperialistic. Hard to call this a positive trait in today’s world. Empires have seriously gone out of fashion

11. Aggressive. But this is pick of the bunch. Don’t punch me!

By this measure I want to be De Gaulle…

 

[TaPele]

I'm nowhere near to a Deity level but I think traits should be divided between those that work in all maps and those that are more or less powerful depending on the map.
For instance, FIN is the best of all because in every map commerce is key. SPI always work too as you'll always need to switch civics. While on the other hand, CRE might come in very handy if you need your borders to expand quickly but isolated is much less useful.