19 Unused Trait Combinations

[scy12]

Copy pasted from the Leaders thread . Their is bad spelling but i think they are understandable

Greece should add Pericles . I reckon he must be Creative Philosophical . Philosophical - creative for obvious "historical" reasons (remember Pericles Athens golden age). I also believe that would be a great combination. Alexander can change to Charismatic , aggresive or remain the same it works both ways.
There is also Eleftherios Benizelos best modern Greek ruler and the best of all regardless of nation in my opinion of the 20th century. By diplomatic success and organizing Greece economy to sustain war he lead Greece to The Balcanian wars success . He should be in but the problem is what trait combination he should use ... I think organized is a given then Charismatic or Financial. Organized Charismatic would be a great combination . As he is a modern ruler his Ub should be a modern one.
Then their is Constantine the ruler of the Eastern Roman Empire. I don't think he should be added but if he is i think Spiritual is a great choice for a trait. It doesn't matter if he personally believed in God , just the fact that he used religion in great effect to control his empire is the best justification for having that trait. Aggresive , imperialistic , financial , anything can be the other one.

 

[Breunor]

Well, Robert the strong would be a very bad choice, since even French people (like me) had barely heard about him...
If you're looking for a french leader, there are plenty of other choice that can be better that Robert the strong:
Henri IV de Navarre, Louis the Saint (Louis IX), Georges Clémenceau, Francois Ier, Phillipe Auguste and many others...

I like Saint Louis because he will obviously spiritual and there would be another western leader with spiritual than isabella...however, spi/Imp wouldn't be a very good combination for him.

Well, I guess we are going to have to agree to disagree here, although its good that we both listed Philip Augustus; I think he was the greatest French King. We also agree that here are a lot of good chocies. We also agree on Henri IV, certainly one of the best.

I'm not a great fan of St. Louis. I do like that he ended the Albigensian Crusade by maming peace wtih Raymond. I'm not a fan of his crusades in the holy land (conduct of 7th and 8th), and his persecution of the Jews. But mostly I give him strikes for the disaster in Sicily, known as the War of Sicilian Vespers. Even though this occurred after his death, his placement of Charles as the restored Angevin line lead to this war. However, if you say that this was Charles' fault and not Louis, I can understand that position.

Now, in game terms, if you want Spiritual, right you are!

I know Robert the Strong is obscure, I like bringing out people like this ! It was a tad of a joke, but my point is not to ignore the LONG history of France. He saved Paris from the Vikings and lead to undermining the (Atg that point) weak Carolingians until the Capetians were put into power. If we view that the Valois were essntailly a branch of the Capetians, he can be thoguht of as the founder of the long line of French kings. Anyway, we have the Dark Ages underepresented!


But, as you said, there are a lot of good choices, if you don't like Robert. I think many are better than Louis XIV. We can probably come up with about 7 - 10 real top notch leaders. What do you think of Francis I? I've always felt Francis I got a bit of a bad rap. He may be the first king of what we would call a united France. He had to deal with Charles V of Austria/Spain, an absolute powerhouse, and came out alive with France on its feet. I especially like Francis I since he was largely responsible for making France the cultural leader of Europe (or even the whole world).


Best wishes,

Breunor

 

[LAnkou]

Well, Breunor, you are quite impressive...

I don't know if you are french, but you know french history better than me (and i'm considered to know french history better than average french people). It just show how french people aren't that good with their own history (a good joke about it: Which french king were the greatest? Louis with a cross and some sticks)

In France, Saint Louis will be one of the few King cited with Louis XIV to be great kings. Some kind of Propaganda ("France, elder daughter of Church") told us that French best leaders were (in quite accurate order):

1) Napoleon
2) Louis XIV
3) Saint Louis
4) Henri IV
5) Charles de Gaulle

I know that a lot of people would find a lot of things to throw at De Gaulle, but here in France, he's still considered as a liberator. It is too recent history (He just quit head of state in April 69, less than 40 years ago) to be fair about him (in one sense or the other)

Henri IV is known to have been assassinated and for some fun things (chicken pot, "Paris worth a celebration"...). Whereas is true achievement is the Edit de Nantes.

Saint Louis is known to be a fair judge (he's known to give justice under an oak). All the crusade's mess isn't very transmitted to french people since we prefer to remind him as a great men than a poor crusader.

I don't think justification are needed for Nappy and Louis XIV. Just remind that the latter, despite all you can say for him being a good or a bad king, was the center of Europe at his time.

Another possibility for leader would be some revolutionnary men: Robespierre or Danton.

Hoiwever, when i look at the list, even if i would be glad that France get another leader, i can't see which one would be as obvious as the 2 current one. We always can pick some, but i don't think i would be satisfied, Louis and Nappy had to much impact on history compared to any other.

PS: I didn't include Charlemagne in my post because a lot of people would argue he could be a german leader too. But from a french point of view, Charlemagne is the obvious third choice for France.
Is there any other obvious leader for Germany besides Freddie and Otto?

 

[Antilogic]

This is the good kind of discussion we need. I am all for considering Phillip Augustus, Henri IV, and Saint Louis. It may be preferable to pick one of the former simply to avoid name confusion, though.

Though, I would advise against Robespierre. The French revolution ended after a few scant years in Napoleon's rise to power, and representing only a marginal piece of French history (in a historical period already covered by the much greater Napoleon).

Charlemagne is unusual...I would suggest that he be able to lead either France or Germany (and if he is in the game for Germany, then he can't lead France and you have to use another leader). I had the same idea for Charles V, leading both a newly-created Austria and Spain. So far, the idea hasn't warranted any serious discussion, though...

Other great German leaders: you could probably make a good fight for Barbarossa, the founder of the Holy Roman Empire. Other than him, though, Germany has been fractured for the longest time throughout history. Charlemagne is a good one, I think Barbarossa should also be strongly considered. Otto I the Great is another name that should be considered. Just brainstorming right now--I can write a little more later on.

Somebody is going to throw out Hitler's name eventually, but I really don't see him as a great leader--he's famous as a mass-murderer, but his reign ended with his ignoble suicide, the carpet bombing of every major city in Germany, and the end of an independent German state. Doesn't sound like a particularly successful reign to me, so I would vote for somebody else who improved the position of Germany (or its ancestor states) in the world.

 

[madviking]

Maybe Charlemange becuase of the Franks, but that's not really France

 

[Breunor]

Well, Breunor, you are quite impressive...

I don't know if you are french, but you know french history better than me (and i'm considered to know french history better than average french people). It just show how french people aren't that good with their own history (a good joke about it: Which french king were the greatest? Louis with a cross and some sticks)

In France, Saint Louis will be one of the few King cited with Louis XIV to be great kings. Some kind of Propaganda ("France, elder daughter of Church") told us that French best leaders were (in quite accurate order):

1) Napoleon
2) Louis XIV
3) Saint Louis
4) Henri IV
5) Charles de Gaulle

I know that a lot of people would find a lot of things to throw at De Gaulle, but here in France, he's still considered as a liberator. It is too recent history (He just quit head of state in April 69, less than 40 years ago) to be fair about him (in one sense or the other)

Henri IV is known to have been assassinated and for some fun things (chicken pot, "Paris worth a celebration"...). Whereas is true achievement is the Edit de Nantes.

Saint Louis is known to be a fair judge (he's known to give justice under an oak). All the crusade's mess isn't very transmitted to french people since we prefer to remind him as a great men than a poor crusader.

I don't think justification are needed for Nappy and Louis XIV. Just remind that the latter, despite all you can say for him being a good or a bad king, was the center of Europe at his time.

Another possibility for leader would be some revolutionnary men: Robespierre or Danton.

Hoiwever, when i look at the list, even if i would be glad that France get another leader, i can't see which one would be as obvious as the 2 current one. We always can pick some, but i don't think i would be satisfied, Louis and Nappy had to much impact on history compared to any other.

PS: I didn't include Charlemagne in my post because a lot of people would argue he could be a german leader too. But from a french point of view, Charlemagne is the obvious third choice for France.
Is there any other obvious leader for Germany besides Freddie and Otto?

Thanks Lankau

I'm not French but I am an historian so I do study a lot of French history. Paris IS my favorite city, though, its where I went on my honeymoon!

The interesting question for a game like this as who the 'representative' is can be complex because there are a lot of different criteria. Is the great leader the person who made the country politically powerful? Is it someone who was a great peacemaker, a thinker who made the economy good? Is it someone who lead the country to glory? We all have different perspecitves not only on the people themselves, but also ont he relative significance or greatness of their accomplishments.

Napoleon being first on the list is interesting. I'm actually a believer that Napoleon was the greatest figure ever in military history, which puts me somewhat apart from my brethren military historians. He clearly lead France to their greatest point. But, he also ended up losing, causing France to lose a lot of territory and suffering substantial casualites.

He's probably one of the most controversial figures. Military historian Corelli Barnett just thinks Napoleon was overrated, terrible, lucky. David Chandler feels otherwise. Obviously, I don't agree with Barnett.

Many of the leader 'picks' in the game are the most FAMOUS leaders (to the West especially, the key target audience) as opposed to the most important or best. So, Egypt get Hatsheptsut and Rameses II, instead of the more important Thutmosis III (founder of the new kingdom). Isabella represents Spain, probably because we learn as school boys that Ferdinand and Isabella commissioned Columbus -- but there are a lot better picks for greatness or importance.

So, who was a 'better' pick for Rome, Augustus or Antoninus Pius? Clearly, Augustus helped make Rome a great empire, a powerful country, to help last for hundreds of years. But Antoninus was a great peacemaker, just a great human being. (I agree with Augustus for the game). Shi Huang Ti was clearly the best pick for China, but certainly not a great man fromthe standpoint of somebody who treated people well. Alexander of Macedon led Greece to their greatest glory, but subjected the Greeks themselves and was considered a conqueror. Ivan the terrible was clearly a terrible person but was an effective leader. Of course, ovcasionally you do get kings who pretty much do everything right (Mehmet II and Sulaiman of the Ottomans, Elizabeth of England, Philip Augustus, Augustus of Rome, etc).


Louis XIV is clearly famous, but I would harldy say he was as great a king as Philip Augustus. Louis XIV had a lot of good but a lot of bad also.

I agree with others that Charles the Great may be considered 'German' as well as French. Clovis may have a similar issue.

Anyway, if you don't know a lot about some of the dark ages figures like Robert the Strong, I encourage you to look them up. The Medieval period ahd many terrific and interesting characters like Philip.


For Germany, I agree with Antilogic that Otto I is a great pick, as is Frederick and Barbarossa. Its hard to find a great leader after Frederick II when Germany essentially collapsed into smaller countires. So we have the medieval leaders and the later Prussian leaders. If you want to go earlier, Theodoric the Great of the Ostrogoths is a good pick but I prefer the other names listed.

Best wishes,

Breunor

 

[mitsho]

For Germany, I agree with Antilogic that Otto I is a great pick, as is Frederick and Barbarossa. Its hard to find a great leader after Frederick II when Germany essentially collapsed into smaller countires. So we have the medieval leaders and the later Prussian leaders. If you want to go earlier, Theodoric the Great of the Ostrogoths is a good pick but I prefer the other names listed.

That was my first idea when somebody asked about a obvious German leader. Of course there are many things that go against him but he is just a fascinating person. Other than that I would too say that Barbarossa is the best pick for a third leader as he is the most famous one (Hitler is a whole other debate!).

I wouldn't go back more into the Dark Age, especially as there are big differences between the Ostrogoths and the Germans... Another option would be to pick an Austrian Emperor to represent that part of the empire too (and they were the Holy Roman Emperors when the Empire didn't "exist" anymore).

mick

 

[Vynd]

Thanks Lankau

Many of the leader 'picks' in the game are the most FAMOUS leaders (to the West especially, the key target audience) as opposed to the most important or best. So, Egypt get Hatsheptsut and Rameses II, instead of the more important Thutmosis III (founder of the new kingdom). Isabella represents Spain, probably because we learn as school boys that Ferdinand and Isabella commissioned Columbus -- but there are a lot better picks for greatness or importance.

I suspect that part of the reason Hatsheptsut and Isabella are leaders in the game is because they want to squeeze in female leaders whenever a decent case could be made for them. Relatively speaking, there aren't that many to choose from. The fact that Americans are more likely to have heard of Isabella than any other Spanish monarch (not saying much) doesn't hurt either, but Hatsheptsut? I doubt very many people have heard of her.

 

[Sabretou]

1. Aggressive/Charismatic = Genghis Khan, IMO.
2. Aggressive/Organized* = Xerxes (Persia)
3. Charismatic/Creative = Iltutmish (India)
4. Charismatic/Industrious = Pacal (Aztec)?
5. Charismatic/Philosophical = Abraham Lincoln (America)
6. Creative/Expansive* = Philip II (Greece)?
7. Creative/Financial* = Canute (Vikings)?
8. Creative/Philosophical* = Sejong (Korea)?
9. Creative/Protective = Akbar the Great (India)
10. Expansive/Financial* = Barbarossa (Germany)
11. Expansive/Imperialistic = Suleiman the Magnificent (Ottomans)
12. Financial/Organized* = Darius (Persia)
13. Imperialistic/Industrious = Charles V (Spain)?
14. Imperialistic/Philosophical
15. Imperialistic/Protective = Gwangaetto (Korea)
16. Imperialistic/Spiritual = Charlemagne (France)
17. Industrious/Philosophical ??
18. Organized/Protective = Baibars (Arabia)
19. Philosophical/Protective = Atahualpa (Incas)?

 

[Lance of Llanwy]

1. Aggressive/Charismatic = Genghis Khan, IMO.
2. Aggressive/Organized* = Xerxes (Persia)
3. Charismatic/Creative = Iltutmish (India)
4. Charismatic/Industrious = Pacal (Aztec)?
5. Charismatic/Philosophical = Abraham Lincoln (America)
6. Creative/Expansive* = Philip II (Greece)?
7. Creative/Financial* = Canute (Vikings)?
8. Creative/Philosophical* = Sejong (Korea)?
9. Creative/Protective = Akbar the Great (India)
10. Expansive/Financial* = Barbarossa (Germany)
11. Expansive/Imperialistic = Suleiman the Magnificent (Ottomans)
12. Financial/Organized* = Darius (Persia)
13. Imperialistic/Industrious = Charles V (Spain)?
14. Imperialistic/Philosophical
15. Imperialistic/Protective = Gwangaetto (Korea)
16. Imperialistic/Spiritual = Charlemagne (France)
17. Industrious/Philosophical ??
18. Organized/Protective = Baibars (Arabia)
19. Philosophical/Protective = Atahualpa (Incas)?

Forget Agg/Chm. It'll never happen...and I don't think it fits Genghis as well as it could fit....say....Napoleon.
[*]Aggressive/Charismatic = Forbidden
[*]Aggressive/Organized* = Xerxes (Persia)This guy is a loser, plain and simple. He gets listed for name recognition, not because he was good. Agg/Org would fit Qin Shi Huangdi pretty nicely, but they'll never get over their "Protective China" fetish. If they make a third Chinese leader whose protective....I'll...I don't know. I'll flip out or something...
[*]Charismatic/Creative = Iltutmish (India)No comment
[*]Charismatic/Industrious = Pacal Mayan
[*]Charismatic/Philosophical = Abraham Lincoln (America)Good traits for Abe.
[*]Creative/Expansive* = Philip II (Greece)?No more Makedonians. Let's get a Greek leader for the Greeks, shall we? I know its a pan-Hellenic civ meant to unify Greece, Makedon, Epeiros, etc. but at least make the leaders pan-Hellenic too! Just so long as it isn't Kleo by herself...please no...
[*]Creative/Financial* = Canute (Vikings)?No comment
[*]Creative/Philosophical* = Sejong (Korea)?Pericles please. Excellent candidate to represent the cultural side of Greece. That would leave us pining for a Spartan
[*]Creative/Protective = Akbar the Great (India)No comment
[*]Expansive/Financial* = Barbarossa (Germany)Sign me up...
[*]Expansive/Imperialistic = Suleiman the Magnificent (Ottomans)No comment
[*]Financial/Organized* = Darius (Persia)Ah, finally. A Persian who knew what he was doing. This combo might be forbidden...and would be horribly overpowered in tandem with the Immortal. *shudder*
[*]Imperialistic/Industrious = Charles V (Spain)?Is he the really modern guy? If so, no thanks. Philip II....whose just like Louie. Built Spain into a great super power and wrecked it...all in his own lifetime! But he'd get Spi/Imp
[*]Imperialistic/Philosophical
[*]Imperialistic/Protective = Gwangaetto (Korea)No comment
[*]Imperialistic/Spiritual = Charlemagne (France)He's good and all...but where does he belong? Sure...his empire was based in France, but his culture was decidedly German. Vercingetorix, Brennus, and all their Gaullic friends qualify as French leaders on that standard.
[*]Industrious/Philosophical Forbidden
[*]Organized/Protective = Baibars (Arabia)One protective leader per civ. Please.

Other suggestions...
K(C)leopatra- C'mon....we all know it's going to happen. I'm surprised it hasn't already. At least she's good and another chick. I'd prescribe Chm/Cre. What would be really funny if she was super-suggestive like Cathy, but looked like she really did...at least according to those coins. Funny stuff. Fits with Greece or Egypt.

Leonidas- Cash in on 300! Yeah! As far as Spartan kings go, he's as good a candidate as any. Pro/Imp fits Sparta well...Sparta never pretended to care about anything other than Sparta. What would be really cool if they alternated the capitals for the three leaders...Perikles gets Athens, Leonidas gets Sparta, and Alexander gets Pella. Of course they get the others soon after, but it'd be a cool touch, IMO. Greece, obviously.

Emperor Tai Cung(Tsung in Wade-Giles)- Give him Agg/Org if not to Qin. And why does Mao have Pro? And Expansive? Well...whatever...I don't want to rant on it again...

 

[Watiggi]

Agg/Org would fit Qin Shi Huangdi pretty nicely, but they'll never get over their "Protective China" fetish. If they make a third Chinese leader whose protective....I'll...I don't know. I'll flip out or something...

Qin maybe Agg/Org, but not internationally, ONLY domestically - of which isn't represented in the game. Qin's solution to outsiders (to the north) was to build the Great Wall. If that ain't Protective, then I don't know what is. It's a shame though that his actual attitude and aggression cannot be appropriately demonstrated in the game because the game doesn't represent domestic warefare. The Chinese Unification scenario has him as Agg/Cha. I too would have gone for Agg/Org but not in the actual game itself as he wasn't really into waring with other civs.

 

[Lance of Llanwy]

Qin maybe Agg/Org, but not internationally, ONLY domestically - of which isn't represented in the game. Qin's solution to outsiders (to the north) was to build the Great Wall. If that ain't Protective, then I don't know what is. It's a shame though that his actual attitude and aggression cannot be appropriately demonstrated in the game because the game doesn't represent domestic warefare. The Chinese Unification scenario has him as Agg/Cha. I too would have gone for Agg/Org but not in the actual game itself as he wasn't really into waring with other civs.

Should both his traits be based around him building the Great Wall? He didn't even actually undertake much building, he simply linked up the various forts and embankments that were already in place and centralized their command. To center both his traits around that just doesn't seem wise...it's like defining Elizabeth I with repulsing the Spanish Armada. To say that civil war isn't aggressive, considering that quite bit of the land he conquered hadn't before been very Chinese at all(particularly the South and modern Sichuan province) is just a case of retroactively applying a cultural identity. But this could be debated for pages and pages. I'd just like to see half of his traits NOT determined by the Great Wall, which was far from his greatest or most enduring achievement. I'd go with any combo of Ind, Pro, and Org, aside from the present one.

Mao though....Mao didn't really protect anything at all. He was also active in foreign affairs, aligning himself with Soviet Russia(albeit a rocky and short-lived relationship) and constantly meddling with US operations. So protective fits in neither a literal or figurative sense...and expansive? Isn't that meant for leaders who promoted growth? That's something of a sick joke where Mao is concerned. I've made him Chm/Phi myself....but Cre could work too. But Chm, IMO, is a must...he was and still is revered in China, and it's very hard to find a better case for the trait than his "Long March." Phi or Cre for the "Cultural Revolution" fiasco...

Well...sorry about that....it was bound to happen I guess...

 

[sylvanllewelyn]

You're opening a can of worms, but one annoyance I have with the protective trait is labelling most Asian leaders with that characteristic. Just because Chinese and Japanese cities were harder to take down than European ones doesn't mean they're defensive. It just means they were technologically more advanced. And how does that translate to better infantry when rifles came around anyway?

But I digress.

Out of all the trait combinations, I miss the old Tokugawa the most. It really makes up for his lackluster UU. At least Asoka is still around, for me to queue up five units all one-turn to completion, switch to theocracy and vassalage, and then switch back to free speech and free religion, to "emulate" the aggressive trait. But it's still lost commerce.

 

[Rancid Sushi]

Lackluster UU? What's wrong with a maceman with 2 first strikes?

Anyway, I like Toku's new traits. You could say that his foreign policies were isolationist or 'protective.' Also, I like rifleman who get 4 promotions out of the gate with only a barracks. That's awesome.

 

[Lance of Llanwy]

Lackluster UU? What's wrong with a maceman with 2 first strikes?

Anyway, I like Toku's new traits. You could say that his foreign policies were isolationist or 'protective.' Also, I like rifleman who get 4 promotions out of the gate with only a barracks. That's awesome.

I'd like to see Japan get Meiji as a builder leader myself. Exp/Ind seems good for him, and slap Bismarck with Imperialist/Expansive. He certainly pulled Europe's strings diplomatically and got Germany into the colonization rush...on second thought, that'd be overpowered. Whatever....you're not likely to see their UU or UB...

 

[Polycrates]

Ditto on Meiji too....I simply cannot understand the fascination with Hirohito. Oh, wait....it's because all anyone ever learns about in relation to Japan is WW2, so Hirohito's name pops up about 10 times for every one mention of Meiji. Meiji is far more symbolic and was far more influential in terms of being a ruler in his own right. Hell, I'd take Prince Shotoku over Hirohito anyday....

Meiji is a cool idea, but I had the impression that he was essentially a figurehead for a bunch of bureaucrats who essentially took over the running of Japan for themselves (my knowledge of Japanese history is incredibly limited so correct me if I'm wrong). Still a good idea though.
Oda Nobunaga is another name I would throw into the mix (no idea what his traits would be).

And maybe I just missed it, but I haven't seen Mustafa Kemal Ataturk mentioned for the Turks - I know they're technically the Ottomans, and I know that he's kinda responsible for the abolition of what was left of the Ottoman empire as such, but he'd be a good leader, I reckon. Charismatic/Creative would probably fit him pretty well.

 

[Rancid Sushi]

Meiji is a cool idea, but I had the impression that he was essentially a figurehead for a bunch of bureaucrats who essentially took over the running of Japan for themselves (my knowledge of Japanese history is incredibly limited so correct me if I'm wrong). Still a good idea though.
Oda Nobunaga is another name I would throw into the mix (no idea what his traits would be).

Meiji was rather pliable to his advisors because he was so young, but I believe that he genuinely desired for Japan to become a modern, industrial nation so it could compete with the West. I'm not sure which trait combination Firaxis could give him without infringing on another leader. Imperialistic/Expansive might be a logical choice, but some people may consider that overpowered.

 

[Lance of Llanwy]

Meiji is a cool idea, but I had the impression that he was essentially a figurehead for a bunch of bureaucrats who essentially took over the running of Japan for themselves (my knowledge of Japanese history is incredibly limited so correct me if I'm wrong). Still a good idea though.
Oda Nobunaga is another name I would throw into the mix (no idea what his traits would be).

And maybe I just missed it, but I haven't seen Mustafa Kemal Ataturk mentioned for the Turks - I know they're technically the Ottomans, and I know that he's kinda responsible for the abolition of what was left of the Ottoman empire as such, but he'd be a good leader, I reckon. Charismatic/Creative would probably fit him pretty well.

Vicky didn't truly rule in her own right much anyways, so Meiji fits the same way she does....as the figurehead of a vital era in Japan's history. Certainly better than Hirohito, and Nobunaga comes from basically the same period and wouldn't bring anything that Toku already doesn't bring to the table...

 

[kniteowl]

I'd like to see Japan get Meiji as a builder leader myself. Exp/Ind seems good for him, and slap Bismarck with Imperialist/Expansive. He certainly pulled Europe's strings diplomatically and got Germany into the colonization rush...on second thought, that'd be overpowered. Whatever....you're not likely to see their UU or UB...

Imperialistic/Expansive might be a logical choice, but some people may consider that overpowered.

Overpowered? How so? there's a thing called maintenance cost and Barbarians to slow down your expansion, even if you Oracle beeline to COL, a Courthouse is still relatively expensive in that early game unless your Organized which in this case your not, besides it'd cost you 3-4 pop to whip a courthouse and there's also games where Civs, especially creative Civs, where they could block you off from settler spamming and on high difficulty levels you can settle very few cities, Depending on circumstances, on Emperor and higher I believe it's best to settle about 3-4 Cities while still being able to stay in control of your high Civics and maintenance cost so the traits aren't as beneficial as they are on the lower to mid range levels.

Assuming this combination comes with the next expansion including the new Better AI modification's by Blake, If you have a Warmonger Civ lurking next door and decide to settler spam while Monty decides to Jaguar Spam, you might as well feed your settlers to the Lions LOL... if you understand what I mean LOL.

 

[Rancid Sushi]

I don't think Imp/Exp is overpowered. I don't even think Phil/Ind is overpowered. I was just thinking about those people who look at Praetorians and call them overpowered. You all know who you are.

On second though, Imperialistic/Industrious seems more accurate for Meiji.