Why didnt firaxis ever improve AGG / PRO?

[kingbeef]

I feel the original question is missing the point of traits.

While it is inevitable that some trait/leader/UU/UB combos will be seen as better or worse, the variety they provide is what gives us the opportunity to try different play styles.

So in answer to your question: Firaxis didn't improve AGG/PRO because the aim was to provide variety and in that respect they are perfect.

 

[plasmacannon]

I feel the original question is missing the point of traits.

While it is inevitable that some trait/leader/UU/UB combos will be seen as better or worse, the variety they provide is what gives us the opportunity to try different play styles.

So in answer to your question: Firaxis didn't improve AGG/PRO because the aim was to provide variety and in that respect they are perfect.

There is even the option to check the box "Unrestricted Leaders" to gain more variety by use AGG/PRO with a different Civ's UU and UB. Some complement these traits well.

A friend of mind randomly got Tokugawa of England for a Raging Barbs multiplayer game we did. By rotating out units, he got to 10xp on so many units that game.
Agg/Pro Redcoats with a stock exchange helping their economy?
He conquered more that I did.

 

[civfanchambers]

Toku works good as leader of the Ethiopians and Ottomans as well. Toku's traits synergies well with janissary and oromo warriors.

 

[Hauptman]

Toku works good as leader of the Ethiopians and Ottomans as well. Toku's traits synergies well with janissary and oromo warriors.

If I didnt hate that setting so much I'd try that.

However, my gunpowder rush isnt as fast as my CS/Mach rush. It's hard to beat the power of Samurai in BC. I've done the paper-(bulb)education-gunpowder rush with the wild Turks... but at best I usually get gunpowder as the other civs finish CS/Mach. Well into the ADs. And I have to crank all new units without even having forges.

 

[traius]

Toku works good as leader of the Ethiopians and Ottomans as well. Toku's traits synergies well with janissary and oromo warriors.

Half of protective is wasted on oromos (and for offensive campigns, the better part of that half). Any aggressive leader gets almost all of what toku does from them. Boudica's oromos > tokus.

 

[civfanchambers]

Half of protective is wasted on oromos (and for offensive campigns, the better part of that half). Any aggressive leader gets almost all of what toku does from them. Boudica's oromos > tokus.

Never forget, nor underestimate the stupidity of the Ai. I can't tell you how many times I've gone on the warpath with Toku, capture an enemy city, stuff it with longbows/muskets/janissary/oromos/rifleman etc..., then go about conquering more cities while the stupid Ai throws away units in a foolish chance to reclaim the city. Capture one enemy city as bait. Let the Ai suicide its units to retake the city, while conquering that civs other cities. Furthermore the Ai will weaken its other cities by removing units to reclaim the captured city I use as bait. I find this tactic works very well on the Ai. Best used when the bait city is internal, while conquering coastal cities. Don't make the mistake of assuming that Toku's protective trait is for defending YOUR cities. Leverage the protective trait by making the enemy come to you where you want them. Then strike them down elsewhere.

 

[traius]

Never forget, nor underestimate the stupidity of the Ai. I can't tell you how many times I've gone on the warpath with Toku, capture an enemy city, stuff it with longbows/muskets/janissary/oromos/rifleman etc..., then go about conquering more cities while the stupid Ai throws away units in a foolish chance to reclaim the city. Capture one enemy city as bait. Let the Ai suicide its units to retake the city, while conquering that civs other cities. Furthermore the Ai will weaken its other cities by removing units to reclaim the captured city I use as bait. I find this tactic works very well on the Ai. Best used when the bait city is internal, while conquering coastal cities. Don't make the mistake of assuming that Toku's protective trait is for defending YOUR cities. Leverage the protective trait by making the enemy come to you where you want them. Then strike them down elsewhere.

Sure. But Oromos get drill 1 (and 2 incidentally) anyway, so they don't get protective's drill 1. All they get is the city defender bonus. So while in your argument the city defender is the most important in that niche, it's still only half of protective's normal bonus for gunpowder units (1 of 2 promos). I think boudica's charisma is almost (but not quite) as useful for that scenario, as you must have some units who gained xp from combat, meaning she can still get a combat 1, drill 2, c defender 3 at 8 xp. At 8 xp, toku's is the exact same (at 10 his is stronger).

 

[Strategist83]

Both Aggressive and Protective are much better traits than the CivFanatics wisdom assumes. The issue is people are analyzing how strong they are against the AI - but since this isn't what the traits are balanced around, it is irrelevant and the conclusion thus wrong. This is parallel to how players think only archer units are worthwhile in Civ V, or how walls and defensive buildings are worthless.

- If you aren't facing the very limited Civ IV AI opponents then you are *not* going to have a large tech advantage to automatically win your wars for you. That means that free +10% Combat I promotion is extremely valuable since wars are going to be hard-fought, costly and bloody. Combat I is a huge advantage in wars that let you win battles you normally wouldn't have and massively stack odds in your favor for even battles (combat I vs no promotion has a far greater chance than 50% to win against equal opponent).

- Protective is possibly a little weaker than Aggressive but the same applies: Greatly stacks the odds in your favor on equal battles. Trying to take cities from a Protective player is no fun. That even works out as an economic advantage, as well, since you need fewer defenders and can get away focusing on your economy with a smaller army if you desire. The choice between attacking a player with Protective and one without means Protective is much less likely to be targetted.

Just like in Civ V, the Japanese are meant to be played very aggressively. Aggressive + Protective is perhaps slight overkill but it simply means they need to constantly engage in wars (which the Tokugawa AI also fails to do).

Other traits may be better if you simply want to stomp the AIs to paste as quickly as possible - but this is not very relevant in terms of discussing strategy or balance.

 

[Tatran]

You can't compare the civ4 AI versus the very bad civ5 AI.
The civ5 AI is very handicapped due to the 1 UPT mechanic and the lack of roads on hexes.

 

[Seraiel]

What you're not seeing, is, that all traits have advantages in war, not only the direct advantage of Combat I. If a critical unit i. e. is reached a few turns faster with being FIN or PHI, it can face completely different defenders. If one gets more cities with IMP, that means additional units in war a.s.o.

 

[Windsor]

My experience is that Aggressive isn't a great trait in most MP-setups, but its better than in SP.

Its interesting to look at balance in multiplayer, but the way a PBEM plays out is very different than a Gamespy-FFA with blazing timers against some random people. And game settings matter a lot.

The "let's just be aggressive" strategy really only works in duel-games. War costs so much money in Civ4 so being in them constantly kills your tech. There's also the obvious problem that mounted units don't get any boosts. And those are popular in MP too!

I'd also dispute that Civ4 is balanced around multiplayer. If so, nukes would be nerfed hard. To me its fairly obvious that Civ4 is just roughly balanced. It's balanced enough that a noble-player will have fun in singleplayer, but it's not seriously balanced for high level or competitive play.

 

[rah]

It's balanced enough that a noble-player will have fun in singleplayer, but it's not seriously balanced for high level or competitive play.

I'll contend that it's not that bad since people are still so dedicated to it this long after it was released.

 

[Lexicus]

What you're not seeing, is, that all traits have advantages in war, not only the direct advantage of Combat I. If a critical unit i. e. is reached a few turns faster with being FIN or PHI, it can face completely different defenders. If one gets more cities with IMP, that means additional units in war a.s.o.

This. Ultimately having a tech advantage is far more important than an extra promotion...or five.

A friend of mind randomly got Tokugawa of England for a Raging Barbs multiplayer game we did. By rotating out units, he got to 10xp on so many units that game.
Agg/Pro Redcoats with a stock exchange helping their economy?
He conquered more that I did.

This motivated me to try out England for the first time. Cyrus of England=crazy redcoats. The game isn't over yet but there's only a few more Civs left to vassalize

 

[plasmacannon]

I am reading a lot about gaining a tech advantage, which yes works very well to win.

AGG should use a different strategy and that is to pillage improvements gaining gold for themselves to tech and to slow down their opponent's ability to tech.
If the AI just had their food, villages and gold mines destroyed, then they are not teching fast anymore and with mines gone, they are not building units quickly to combat you either, just slaving archers typically.
This works well in Always War games, especially with someone like Alexander who's PHI trait earns him GSs from Libs or Caste System to assist him in teching.

Pillaging a FIN leader is a fun thing to do to nullify their advantage and bring them down to your level, assuming you are not FIN also.

 

[El Bogus]

Is there any scenario in which it's worth to build castles as a PRO leader for the extra trade route?
I wanted to try that, but everytime I did, I found other strategies to be more efficient. So I never rushed Engineering. Any experiences?

 

[bhavv]

Is there any scenario in which it's worth to build castles as a PRO leader for the extra trade route?
I wanted to try that, but everytime I did, I found other strategies to be more efficient. So I never rushed Engineering. Any experiences?

Engineering bulb with Gilgamesh. Ziggurat with spy specialist & castle, plus Xbow / Pikes / Treb rush.

Speed infrastructure in conquered cities with the cheap walls / castle / ziggurat / library whipped then build wealth with as many spy & scientist specialists as the city can support.

Should also work with burger king, but minus the cheap libraries and free border pops which would slow it down considerably in the early game.

 

[reddishrecue]

You could consider pro as a little bit more intelligent because it adds +25% espionage to the total espionage in cities. +25% espionage really could add up and make you able to steal more technologies or do intelligent actions with spies in your cities or counter intelligence in your own cities.

 

[Hauptman]

Is there any scenario in which it's worth to build castles as a PRO leader for the extra trade route?
I wanted to try that, but everytime I did, I found other strategies to be more efficient. So I never rushed Engineering. Any experiences?

HRE is the only nation I'd rush engineering with... since thier landschnechte make you immune to attacks from everyone until crossbows. Every other nation is better off going after CS/Mach.

But after that, there becomes no rush to get free trade up and running, because free castles give you the trade routes already.

 

[bhavv]

Plz. Trebs.

 

[reddishrecue]

Trebs are great.. they easily withdraw sometimes.