Addicted to Creative

[OTAKUjbski]

@InvisibleStalke



That's exactly what I was trying to say (thanks for doing it better than me).

 

[bardolph]

I don't understand the "Creative isn't useful by mid-game" argument.

#1: Cheap Libraries, Theaters and Coliseums. These buildings never go obsolete.

#2: If you fight any wars, you will need to produce culture in the cities you conquer, and again, cheap Libraries and Theaters allow new cities to quickly get their culture churning to be able to push back on your new borders.

 

[aelf]

Its main strength for me is cheap libraries = faster academy = faster early research.

Agreed.

Otherwise its weak. Really weak. Compare to industrious - build Stonehenge get the free monuments and you free border pops. And thats just one wonder you build. Not to mention your wonders power out so much culture that your second tier of cities may not need border pops. Or spiritual - switch to caste system and put in an artist. Or gain a religion and get free expansion that way.

Disagree. I really don't like Stonehenge. It's cheap, but it's hammers very early in the game, and it pollutes my GPP with prophet points, which I (and many others) generally dislike. I also don't like obelisks unless I'm Charismatic because it's only worth 1 culture per turn and has no other use and usually has to be built in cities that have long build queues because they are new. In these situations, I wish I could be building something more useful and the prospect of having Creative's bonus is obviously so much better.

Optimal city placement is a given - Creative just lets you skip the opportunity cost of building a monument and lets you wait fewer turns. Since a monument is cheap, you should always build your city in the location you want for its fat cross - except maybe if you need to capture a military resource urgently - which is just one city placed less optimally.

Optimal city placement is not a given. Why would it be? There are so many situations I can think of where you would have to place your cities in less optimal spots just to get a crucial immediate advantage because you don't get the free +2 culture, including the presence of other civs' cities nearby.

I find Creative way too weak in culture spats too. One nearby wonder or holy city can totally drown out your culture. In an immortal game with me playing Willem vs Saladin, I was on the culture defensive the whole game - at least until Sids Sushi got dropped into my threatened cities. My creative bonuses didn't stand a chance against his multiple holy cities.

Culture wars or spats often happen in relatively new (and, at least for some time, less productive) border cities where the free culture means a lot.

It can be useful in blocking off land. Especially with Catherine and cheap settlers. But even thats pretty situational - many games don't have a natural chokepoint. Other games you don't care if the AI builds towards you as you are going to take those cities anyway.

That's assuming you always go to war with your neighbours, which is a pretty biased assumption.

The worst thing about the trait for me is that it completely runs out of steam by the medieval era - similar to expansive. By then you have built libraries or can build them easily. And +2 culture is easily obtained through other means and not significant in a border fight.

Well, by then you should have acquired a significant advantage that you can leverage.

I don't think Creative is a weak trait. Maybe it boils down to style and priorities.

 

[InvisibleStalke]

I don't understand the "Creative isn't useful by mid-game" argument.

#1: Cheap Libraries, Theaters and Coliseums. These buildings never go obsolete.

#2: If you fight any wars, you will need to produce culture in the cities you conquer, and again, cheap Libraries and Theaters allow new cities to quickly get their culture churning to be able to push back on your new borders.

#1 - by the midgame these buildings are already cheap for any leader. Theatres don't cost much and you probably already built all the libraries you need - and if you didn't they don't take long for a midgame city to put up.

#2 - when warmongering, only the cities that you finish warring on will have a culture fight. Often I've taken the next city in succession before a city comes out of revolt. If you conquer a civ totally it won't push your borders. If you vassalize it after taking core cities then it won't push your borders. And you can always raze cities at the limits of your conquest to create a no mans land to protect inner cities. The +2 culture of creative won't help you against AI core cities that have thousands of culture points by that time.

Getting the fat cross for a captured city at this time is a non event -

- If running free religion then religious culture will do this.
- If running culture slider for happiness it happens anyway.
- If running caste system (not bad for warring if you need extra gold) then artist can do this.
- Otherwise I often need to decrease pop by whipping something - which could easily be a theatre or library.

 

[InvisibleStalke]

Disagree. I really don't like Stonehenge. It's cheap, but it's hammers very early in the game, and it pollutes my GPP with prophet points, which I (and many others) generally dislike. I also don't like obelisks unless I'm Charismatic because it's only worth 1 culture per turn and has no other use and usually has to be built in cities that have long build queues because they are new. In these situations, I wish I could be building something more useful and the prospect of having Creative's bonus is obviously so much better.

Stonehenge is great for an industrious leader, otherwise I agree. But since Industrious can easily gain Creative's bonus, then Industrious > Creative. Similarly spiritual can easily gain border pops from artists or religion. So Spiritual > Creative. Expansive has more workers quicker, so you can chop the monument more readily etc. These traits allow you to gain most of the benefit of creative, but go on to do other things for you.

Optimal city placement is not a given. Why would it be? There are so many situations I can think of where you would have to place your cities in less optimal spots just to get a crucial immediate advantage because you don't get the free +2 culture, including the presence of other civs' cities nearby.

Why wouldn't it be a given? If I look back at a map I've played with a non creative leader, I'd rarely end up with cities placed any differently than with creative. City placement is too critical. The way I look at it Creative doesn't help you place cities better so much as it saves you the hammer and time cost of a monument.

Culture wars or spats often happen in relatively new (and, at least for some time, less productive) border cities where the free culture means a lot.

This may be a playstyle difference. For me a border city is exactly that - its usually built on a hill, builds a wall and doesn't care too much if the tiles on one side of it are pressed as it works the other side. If I build a border city that close to the AI that it is going to engage in a culture war it has a military purpose and will often be protected culturally by a more important city further in.

Cities that are built near the border but which don't have this military purpose will usually have a five tile gap with the AI which makes a culture war unlikely and avoids provoking diplomacy negatives. If I am winning culture later in the game I might then settle the middle tile with a border city - but the AI will never do this.

That's assuming you always go to war with your neighbours, which is a pretty biased assumption.

No that wasn't my assumption. My point was that only a subset of games present an opportunity to wall off the AI and then settle behind your own culture. Many maps don't allow this as there is no natural choke point. And if you are playing a militaristic game then you don't care either since those cities will become yours.

So a creative play for a choke point helps you only in the subset of maps where you aren't going to war early and you have a natural choke point available that isn't too close to the AI core. And where you can't easily seal that chokepoint with other options (eg Stonehenge etc).

Well, by then you should have acquired a significant advantage that you can leverage.

I don't think Creative is a weak trait. Maybe it boils down to style and priorities.

If you can turn the faster libraries and faster border pops into a lead that carries through later into the game you have a point. Creative definitely creates a turn advantage in the early game. Is it enough to offset a lack of power in the mid/late game? I'm skeptical - I haven't felt any such surge when playing creative leaders. Nothing compared to the surge in the early game I get from financial or industrious.

 

[macedon]

i think that creativ its good trait at normal speed, a very good one at epic speed and the strongest at maraton.

 

[Zanttu]

The worst thing about the trait for me is that it completely runs out of steam by the medieval era - similar to expansive.

I agree in everything except that expansive would run out of steam by the medieval era. For me the expansive's biggest bonus is that +2 Health. In BtS health problems start kicking in really badly at modern era. For example forge+factory+power plant+ironworks production city has so much unhealthiness that it's not easy to keep the citizens healthy.

 

[aelf]

Stonehenge is great for an industrious leader, otherwise I agree. But since Industrious can easily gain Creative's bonus, then Industrious > Creative. Similarly spiritual can easily gain border pops from artists or religion. So Spiritual > Creative. Expansive has more workers quicker, so you can chop the monument more readily etc. These traits allow you to gain most of the benefit of creative, but go on to do other things for you.

But not quite. Monuments only give 1 culture per turn, so they can't be said to be equivalent. And really you are comparing normative values here. I agree that Spiritual and Industrious are generally better traits. But, in raw terms, Creative's bonus is better at doing what it does, and this leads to its own benefits.

Why wouldn't it be a given? If I look back at a map I've played with a non creative leader, I'd rarely end up with cities placed any differently than with creative. City placement is too critical. The way I look at it Creative doesn't help you place cities better so much as it saves you the hammer and time cost of a monument.

I don't think so, though. With border pops much slower, optimal city placement often has to be sacrificed, especially when you are going for a strategic resource or when the city has no means early of production for a long time unless you are able to work an important resource tile. It might be that the optimal city placement is one tile away from where the resources in question are immediately acessible, but since it's important or not worth it to delay too long, you just have to opt for the less optimal spot.

This may be a playstyle difference. For me a border city is exactly that - its usually built on a hill, builds a wall and doesn't care too much if the tiles on one side of it are pressed as it works the other side. If I build a border city that close to the AI that it is going to engage in a culture war it has a military purpose and will often be protected culturally by a more important city further in.

Cities that are built near the border but which don't have this military purpose will usually have a five tile gap with the AI which makes a culture war unlikely and avoids provoking diplomacy negatives. If I am winning culture later in the game I might then settle the middle tile with a border city - but the AI will never do this.

I don't see how this works in practice. There are so many conditions that affect a game and city placement that you just can't apply such a rule most of the time. Often, for a large part of the game, my border cities are good cities and it's very important that I get the most use out of them, since I might not want to go to war with the neighbour on that side of the border at least for a long time.

No that wasn't my assumption. My point was that only a subset of games present an opportunity to wall off the AI and then settle behind your own culture. Many maps don't allow this as there is no natural choke point. And if you are playing a militaristic game then you don't care either since those cities will become yours.

So a creative play for a choke point helps you only in the subset of maps where you aren't going to war early and you have a natural choke point available that isn't too close to the AI core. And where you can't easily seal that chokepoint with other options (eg Stonehenge etc).

What I said about assumption is still correct, because in your reckoning one either plays a peaceful REX game or a militaristic game. How about if you are going for a mix of both? How about if you intend to go to war for expansion, but not with all your neighbours, depending on the diplomatic situation?

If you can turn the faster libraries and faster border pops into a lead that carries through later into the game you have a point. Creative definitely creates a turn advantage in the early game. Is it enough to offset a lack of power in the mid/late game? I'm skeptical - I haven't felt any such surge when playing creative leaders. Nothing compared to the surge in the early game I get from financial or industrious.

Comparing Creative to Financial, Spiritual or Industrious will certainly make the former feel insipid. I agree Creative isn't a top-tier trait, but it isn't that weak either.

 

[bardolph]

#1 - by the midgame these buildings are already cheap for any leader. Theatres don't cost much and you probably already built all the libraries you need - and if you didn't they don't take long for a midgame city to put up.

Cheap for well-developed cities, perhaps. But for newly-settled cities or conquered cities, they're not so cheap. Besides, we're talking about three different buildings, not just one. The combined cost of all three buildings adds up to a lot of hammers.

#2 - when warmongering, only the cities that you finish warring on will have a culture fight. Often I've taken the next city in succession before a city comes out of revolt. If you conquer a civ totally it won't push your borders. If you vassalize it after taking core cities then it won't push your borders. And you can always raze cities at the limits of your conquest to create a no mans land to protect inner cities. The +2 culture of creative won't help you against AI core cities that have thousands of culture points by that time.

Agreed. The +2 culture bonus helps these cities get their fat cross running, and only helps in a culture war against under-developed cities (which does happen sometimes).

Getting the fat cross for a captured city at this time is a non event -
- If running free religion then religious culture will do this.
- If running culture slider for happiness it happens anyway.
- If running caste system (not bad for warring if you need extra gold) then artist can do this.
- Otherwise I often need to decrease pop by whipping something - which could easily be a theatre or library.

That's a lot of Ifs, and Creative will give you that border pop without needing to sacrifice in other areas. And if you do end up whipping that theater or library, Creative will give you a very handy hammer bonus to go with that building.

Stonehenge is great for an industrious leader, otherwise I agree. But since Industrious can easily gain Creative's bonus, then Industrious > Creative. Similarly spiritual can easily gain border pops from artists or religion. So Spiritual > Creative. Expansive has more workers quicker, so you can chop the monument more readily etc. These traits allow you to gain most of the benefit of creative, but go on to do other things for you.

It should also be noted that, in the ancient era, neither monuments nor Stonehenge are available unless you've researched Mysticism, which can be a critical diversion from other, more important technologies. Creative allows you to develop your land without researching Mysticism.

 

[InvisibleStalke]

I agree in everything except that expansive would run out of steam by the medieval era. For me the expansive's biggest bonus is that +2 Health. In BtS health problems start kicking in really badly at modern era. For example forge+factory+power plant+ironworks production city has so much unhealthiness that it's not easy to keep the citizens healthy.

Fair comment. But that +2 health means at MOST one extra citizen. And if you are happiness or terrain/food constrained then its no extra citizens. I've been solving late game health problems with Sids Sushi lately, which means that even if I have -8 on health I am still more constrained by happiness. Without Sids Sushi you could consider this as +1 citizen late game which isn't totally useless.

 

[InvisibleStalke]

Cheap for well-developed cities, perhaps. But for newly-settled cities or conquered cities, they're not so cheap. Besides, we're talking about three different buildings, not just one. The combined cost of all three buildings adds up to a lot of hammers.

How useful this is depends on how many theatres / colliseums you build. Which in a peaceful game for me is very few. In a military game where I rely on the culture slider I might build more - but I doubt I'll be put off by the hammer cost of a theatre and I still rarely build colliseums.

That's a lot of Ifs, and Creative will give you that border pop without needing to sacrifice in other areas. And if you do end up whipping that theater or library, Creative will give you a very handy hammer bonus to go with that building.

Thats actually not a lot of ifs - once I have drama I will happily run 10% on the culture slider for a few turns to pop borders in all my captured cities - its likely I will benefit from the extra happiness in my core cities anyway.

If I am not running free religion as soon as I can its likely that I have founded the religion and sending a missionary to any captured city is a priority anyway.

It should also be noted that, in the ancient era, neither monuments nor Stonehenge are available unless you've researched Mysticism, which can be a critical diversion from other, more important technologies. Creative allows you to develop your land without researching Mysticism.

True. I will usually only build Stonehenge if industrious in which case I will need mysticism for many other wonders I intend to build.

 

[JBossch]

No one has mentioned the beast that is pericles and the synergy between his traits. Creative + Spiritual means quick libraries and even quicker GS's. Theaters and odeon's mean even more culture and happiness.
Not worrying about culture, happiness and GP production cannot be underestimated. Throw in his decent early UU and he is a powerhouse.

 

[InvisibleStalke]

But not quite. Monuments only give 1 culture per turn, so they can't be said to be equivalent. And really you are comparing normative values here. I agree that Spiritual and Industrious are generally better traits. But, in raw terms, Creative's bonus is better at doing what it does, and this leads to its own benefits.

Agreed. The question is whether you can gain enough from that bonus to count. For most cities it only helps at the start of their existence - when they don't have many citizens to help your empire anyway.

I don't think so, though. With border pops much slower, optimal city placement often has to be sacrificed, especially when you are going for a strategic resource or when the city has no means early of production for a long time unless you are able to work an important resource tile. It might be that the optimal city placement is one tile away from where the resources in question are immediately acessible, but since it's important or not worth it to delay too long, you just have to opt for the less optimal spot.

Not my experience - generally I place cities where I want to until I reach the limits of my expansion with the AI. But I accept the cost of building the monument or library and commit forests and workers to do that. Maybe I miss out sometimes in the short term.

I don't see how this works in practice. There are so many conditions that affect a game and city placement that you just can't apply such a rule most of the time. Often, for a large part of the game, my border cities are good cities and it's very important that I get the most use out of them, since I might not want to go to war with the neighbour on that side of the border at least for a long time.

I don't like to engage in culture wars on the border if I can avoid it. Even with Creative this gets dicey and makes your neighbours unhappy. Given the choice between snuggling a city up close to the AI and somewhere it can expand in peace I will choose the more open location. When I run out of such choices its rare that a border city will be a worthwhile option - unless I see a military need for a city that can act as a speedbump to an AI attack.

What I said about assumption is still correct, because in your reckoning one either plays a peaceful REX game or a militaristic game. How about if you are going for a mix of both? How about if you intend to go to war for expansion, but not with all your neighbours, depending on the diplomatic situation?

Its a rare game that I can seal off an area to expand in later through culture - typically only if I am on a peninsular - or maybe if there is an AI on a peninsular I can block in. If I start in the middle of a landmass, or on the coast of a continent where I can expand equally in three directions, then I can't create a wall of culture with vacant land behind it for later settling.

 

[bardolph]

How useful this is depends on how many theatres / colliseums you build. Which in a peaceful game for me is very few. In a military game where I rely on the culture slider I might build more - but I doubt I'll be put off by the hammer cost of a theatre and I still rarely build colliseums.


Thats actually not a lot of ifs - once I have drama I will happily run 10% on the culture slider for a few turns to pop borders in all my captured cities - its likely I will benefit from the extra happiness in my core cities anyway.


If I am not running free religion as soon as I can its likely that I have founded the religion and sending a missionary to any captured city is a priority anyway.


True. I will usually only build Stonehenge if industrious in which case I will need mysticism for many other wonders I intend to build.

It seems from your posts that Creative just doesn't fit your play style. I personally don't like diverting my research down the Mysticism tree, and I don't like running my Culture slider unless I absolutely have to (I also don't like prioritizing Drama). I play many games where I don't found a religion, and don't even acquire a religion until well into the Classical, or even the Medieval, era.

Ironically, the Creative trait is terrific for warmongering and rapid expansion, since it allows you to focus very tightly on military technologies, without worrying about culture at all.

Catherine the Great, who is often maligned for her Creative/Imperialistic trait combination, actually benefits from almost perfect synergy between her traits. She can expand either peacefully (with cheap Settlers), or violently (with double-speed GG generation), and can very quickly establish these cities due to the free culture and cheap buildings.

 

[OTAKUjbski]

That's a lot of Ifs, and Creative will give you that border pop without needing to sacrifice in other areas. And if you do end up whipping that theater or library, Creative will give you a very handy hammer bonus to go with that building.

As I see it, more is better, because the point of those "Ifs" is to show how the +2 bonus of Creative can be acquired (at least in part) by certain in-game mechanics and leveraging other leader traits.

This type of thing can't be done quite as easily with many of the other traits. At least IMO, this makes Creative a considerably weaker trait.

In the scope of this thread, that's exactly what the OP called for ... ways to circumvent Creative's bonuses.

 

[InvisibleStalke]

No one has mentioned the beast that is pericles and the synergy between his traits. Creative + Spiritual means quick libraries and even quicker GS's. Theaters and odeon's mean even more culture and happiness.
Not worrying about culture, happiness and GP production cannot be underestimated. Throw in his decent early UU and he is a powerhouse.

Pericles is creative+philo - which I agree is a good synergy. Hatty is creative+spiritual and is totally underpowered compared to Ramses in my opinion. Cathy is another one that I agree has good synergy for an early landgrab. And you could argue that Zara has similar synergy in that he can pay for his early landgrab.

 

[JBossch]

Pericles is creative+philo - which I agree is a good synergy.

My bad. Thanks for the correction. Creative and philo was what I meant.

 

[bardolph]

As I see it, more is better, because the point of those "Ifs" is to show how the +2 bonus of Creative can be acquired (at least in part) by certain in-game mechanics and leveraging other leader traits.

This type of thing can't be done quite as easily with many of the other traits. At least IMO, this makes Creative a considerably weaker trait.

In the scope of this thread, that's exactly what the OP called for ... ways to circumvent Creative's bonuses.

No trait allows any leader to claim a monopoly over anything. Traits only give easier access to certain things. One doesn't need to be Philosophical to get Great People, one need not be Aggressive to make war, and one does not need to be Industrious to build wonders.

It may be true that certain traits are better at leveraging specific styles of play, but only if you devote your entire play style to leveraging that trait. Creative gives bonuses that apply to every play style, since the bonus culture applies to all cities, and the buildings are critical ones which you will probably need in every city.

This makes Creative an extremely flexible trait, that can adapt to almost any situation.

I agree that it does not have the devastating potential that certain traits offer for specific play styles, such as Financial, Philosophical, or Industrious, but IMO Creative is a solid trait overall.

 

[InvisibleStalke]

It seems from your posts that Creative just doesn't fit your play style. I personally don't like diverting my research down the Mysticism tree, and I don't like running my Culture slider unless I absolutely have to (I also don't like prioritizing Drama). I play many games where I don't found a religion, and don't even acquire a religion until well into the Classical, or even the Medieval, era.

Ironically, the Creative trait is terrific for warmongering and rapid expansion, since it allows you to focus very tightly on military technologies, without worrying about culture at all.

Catherine the Great, who is often maligned for her Creative/Imperialistic trait combination, actually benefits from almost perfect synergy between her traits. She can expand either peacefully (with cheap Settlers), or violently (with double-speed GG generation), and can very quickly establish these cities due to the free culture and cheap buildings.

I don't really have a playstyle - I try to play each leader differently and vary my games. Creative does give you a flexibility to abandon the religious tree - which I usually will do with a creative leader.

I agree Creative is good for early game warring - Kublai Khan is a favorite of mine and still has my highest score. But since BTS I haven't found myself doing early rushes so much - maybe its because there is more time for peaceful expansion or maybe I have just been experimenting with less aggressive leaders lately. Either way it means I don't get to use this synergy as much.

Later when I do war, it is so likely that I will be using the culture slider at least a little that the culture problems seem to solve themselves.

 

[InvisibleStalke]

No trait allows any leader to claim a monopoly over anything. Traits only give easier access to certain things. One doesn't need to be Philosophical to get Great People, one need not be Aggressive to make war, and one does not need to be Industrious to build wonders.

It may be true that certain traits are better at leveraging specific styles of play, but only if you devote your entire play style to leveraging that trait. Creative gives bonuses that apply to every play style, since the bonus culture applies to all cities, and the buildings are critical ones which you will probably need in every city.

This makes Creative an extremely flexible trait, that can adapt to almost any situation.

Heres my problem with creative.

Industrious leaders are the best wonder creators. Thats true at the start of the game and its true at the end.

Philo leaders are the best GP creators. True at the start and at the end.

Financial leaders are the best commerce creators. True throughout the game.

Aggressive/Charismatic leaders are the best warmongers. True throughout the game (Aggressive has the lead early and debatably charismatic may overtake at points)

But Creative leaders are only best in culture in the early game. Later they will be overtaken by industrious and spiritual/religious leaders who can easily drown out their culture. In their core competency they lose ground to what is essentially a side effect of other traits.

Border wars are not a cinch with creative. +2 culture becomes irrelevant in the mid game.

Two examples:

- Game where I played as Willem (creative) bordering Saladin (spiritual). In border cities his culture drowned mine out easily. Multiple holy cities, cheap temples etc easily drowned out my culture.

- Game where I played as Augustus (industrious) bordering Suri (creative). Again I captured one of his cities with Praets. Later he was pushing my borders and threatening to take it back. I used Industrious to put a wonder in the city - versailles - and suddenly +12 culture from the wonder pushes the culture right back again. Later I can easily drop hermitage in the same city in only a few turns.

The +2 bonus is simply too small for this to be a good trait after the early game. It only helps border cities - and by less than one artist running would do.