Addicted to Creative

[Bleys]

Great thread. I am a CRE addict myself, but I push myself to play other leaders and combos (my current game is Lincoln, PHI/CHA, hes HUGE IMHO).

I do find that when I play a CRE leader, I invariably DO find its quick-boost useful, even if I am not trying to block an AI. Its all about getting cities up and running faster, and I find most of my cities need that border pop for the best tiles, so being able to skip the monument and start with a worker or other key building to be extremely valuable.

Awesome stuff guys, truly outstanding analysis, one of the best threads I have seen in a WHILE about a "broad" topic. This board will be a big part of why I keep playing this game well into summer, I can tell already.

 

[Calouste]

Do you really find you are able to GET 7 temples/religions in a single city; I think 3 is a more reasonable number but feel free to argue. Any, with 3 you get 3 happy and 3CPT (the religion benefit occurs for any civ that has the religion, the discounted building is the advantage) with no possibility to increase the happy by running the drama slider. You spend 120 hammers, ignoring Christo Redentor.

With creative you get 5 CPT, 1 happy and the chance to get more happy, plus the science boost. You spend 110 hammers. You also have 2CPT from the trait itself.

Spiritual has the advantage when it can build up a single city to higher populations and with more religions whereas creative can do better at expanding cities outward (7CPT after spending about the same number of hammers, without the religion requirement).

You forgot an important bit: those 2nd and 3rd religions don't spread for free, they cost a missionary @ 40 each. That would make it 200

 

[bardolph]

I think that might be part of the "problem" I see with Creative. You don't have to do anything different to take advantage of Creative.

That "problem" is also the benefit of Creative. You don't need to change your play style to take advantage of the trait. Creative kicks in every time you settle or capture a city, period.

Except in specific, often extreme situations, Creative generally doesn't offer any new possibilities or open any additional strategic options.

Creative is perfect for a Domination push, since land area is a key demographic that you need to capitalize on. Creative establishes a free border pop for new or captured cities, then kicks in again when you build cheap culture-producing buildings to give you a second border pop not long after the first.

Domination victory is a perfect example of where Creative continues to produce for you even to the very end stages of a game. I wouldn't consider the Domination scenario "rare" or "extreme." For me, it is the most common victory condition.

Popping a city's borders as soon as is necessary is still going to happen. Building a Library is still going to happen. Creative just makes it a little bit faster and cheaper.

Whether those "saved" turns are enough to make the rest of the game any easier or more winnable I guess is up for discussion based on the different strategies which exist out there.

But in my experience, the few turns gained by the early Creative production savings is great ... but not to the extent I'd be willing to give up the all-game savings from traits like Industrious, Organized and Spiritual.

I agree with these points. Creative simply offers a "faster and cheaper" way to accomplish tasks that you will need to accomplish anyway. Creative does not offer a dramatic, game-changing solution that completely changes the way that you play the game (though its effects can be fairly dramatic in the Domination scenario).

This is actually the strength of the Creative trait. You don't have to completely alter your strategy around it. You can play your "normal" game, and Creative will automatically accelerate your results. The OP described it extremely well: he jumped to a higher difficulty level, and it was the Creative trait that allowed him to do so, specifically because it boosted his play style enough to make him competitive with the AI.

I wouldn't consider Creative to be "top-tier," if by "top-tier" you mean "exploitable." Creative is not exploitable quite in the same way that Industrious or Spiritual is, because it does eventually cap out (unless, of course, you are going for a Domination victory, in which case Creative will produce for you till the very end).

I actually consider Creative to be a solid "middle-tier" trait, a little stronger than Aggressive. Both of these traits have simple, obvious uses, which are easy to leverage with a fairly "standard," aggressive military strategy. It is not necessary to get into the deep intricacies of Specialist versus Cottage versus Wonder/Super-Specialist economies to leverage these traits. Just spam cities, built armies, and go conquer. Simple and easy.

Another boon of Creative is that you never have to worry about timing during the early game when you are busy scrambling for strategic resources. Creative civs can easily settle with optimal city placement, while non-Creative civs have important trade-offs to consider when, for example, settling two tiles away from that all-important Copper resource.

Also, more often than not, the Creative civ will come out ahead if you are having cultural border wars. This is due not only to the free +2, but also due to the cheap culture-producing buildings that come from being Creative. This is a good thing, and also comes about with very little micromanagement.

Once again, that is precisely my point: In most cases, Creative needs specific examples to justify its usefulness. For most of the other traits (especially the "top tier" traits), no specific scenario has to be contrived to make them useful or applicable -- they just always are!

I actually find the opposite to be true. Creative simply "works" with any strategy, while Industrious doesn't give you the option to go wonder-spamming, it demands it.

Ironically, your statement only shows just how weak Creative really is ... that it requires its other bonuses to "make up" for its own, innate shortcomings.

Hmm... this part of the argument is going nowhere. I'm not advocating the "innate" portion of the trait. I'm advocating the entire trait. Yes, if you nerf Creative by taking away its building bonuses, you end up with a weaker trait.

Creative needs its buildings bonuses to be of general value. While nearly every other trait can stand solely on its primary benefit.

And??

Not to mention that even though Creative and Spiritual have been compared a few times, Spiritual's primary "No Anarchy" bonus has not once come into the discussion -- despite Creative going full force with all of its bonuses together.

Another straw man. Just to set the record straight: comparing cheap temples alone versus the entire benefit of Creative is not even close. Your analysis of who pays more for "theater + library + 3 temples" is, quite frankly, a silly and contrived scenario.

I agree with you that Spiritual is potentially a great trait. This is due mostly to the No Anarchy effect. However, it takes a lot of attention and micromanagement to fully exploit it.

I think if we really wanted to take off the gloves and get into a knock-down, drag-out over the full implications of Spiritual vs Creative in a general sense, Creative wouldn't stand a chance.

Spiritual, like Industrious, can be a powerhouse if you concentrate maniacally on exploiting it, but it can be a real pain in the arse to do so. I don't want to do all the queue-shuffling and build timing that needs to take place in order to switch civics every 5 turns like clockwork just because I can.

And I think if we continued the brawl onto every trait other than Aggressive, Expansive, Imperialistic and Protective, Creative would likely find itself fighting the same losing battle.

If you add "Charismatic" to this list, you'd find Creative right in the middle of the pack, which is where I would place it. However, the thing I like about Creative is that it doesn't constrain my play very much. It doesn't force me into a particular strategy the way that Financial, Philosophical, or Industrious does.

I am more likely to pursue a Domination victory with a Creative civ, but I naturally lean towards Domination anyway, so Creative is a natural complement to my play style.

It sounds like you're the one who wants to change the criteria to strengthen your position.

Not really. I recognize that discussing Leaders instead of isolated traits would be a very different discussion. However, it would also be more meaningful.

For example, I fully admit that Imperialistic is a weak trait. However, Catherine, the Caesars, and the Khans are all solid leaders, despite having the "handicap" of Imperialistic.

 

[UncleJJ]

I am more likely to pursue a Domination victory with a Creative civ, but I naturally lean towards Domination anyway, so Creative is a natural complement to my play style.

A lot has been said in this thread but for me this summarises the most likely reason for the differences between those that think Creative is a good trait and those that think it's weak. Like bardolph my games usually have a domination phase as I grab land and resources even if it ends in a Space or Diplomatic victory and so I value Creative highly. I would interested if anyone who thinks Creative is weak also favours a warmongering playstyle.

 

[futurehermit]

I have the Canada mod installed with 3 leaders with the 3 trait combos not in the game (Cha/Cre, Org/Pro, Ind/Phi). Cha/Cre is really quite an enjoyable combo. The only downside as I see it is that one of the advantages of Cre is not needing myst/monuments and you really need that to take advantage of one of Cha's main bonuses. It's a great combo though overall. I like Cre/Agg a lot and Cre/Cha is very similar. I wouldn't rank it higher than HC/Liz though. I've played Ind/Phi a few times. I can't say I see it as being so powerful it shouldn't be in the game. It would be top tier though probably. If you give the leader a late UB/UU and subpar opening techs like Canada has (fish/hunt) then I think it balances it out a fair bit.

 

[Winston Hughes]

I have the Canada mod installed with 3 leaders with the 3 trait combos not in the game (Cha/Cre, Org/Pro, Ind/Phi).

Ooh, I didn't know that. I may just give Canada a try for my next couple of games.

Not sure it deserves three leaders though...

I've played Ind/Phi a few times. I can't say I see it as being so powerful it shouldn't be in the game.

I'd guess that's largely because you're not that experienced at wonder spamming strats (nor am I, btw).

I dread to think what Obsolete and his cult of followers could do with that combo, though. We'd never hear the end of it.

 

[fed1943]

Ind/Phi was put out because the Vanilla beta testers built an amazing number
of GPeople, and not random ones...

Back on Creative: I like this trait, it's easy,good for any style, excellent in the
begin (not just begin of the game,also begin of each city, built on conquered).

Best regards,

 

[futurehermit]

Ooh, I didn't know that. I may just give Canada a try for my next couple of games.

Not sure it deserves three leaders though...



I'd guess that's largely because you're not that experienced at wonder spamming strats (nor am I, btw).

I dread to think what Obsolete and his cult of followers could do with that combo, though. We'd never hear the end of it.

Of course Canada deserves three leaders

I am experienced at wonderspam strats and I can see the synergy. I'm not saying it would be a bottom-tier combo. Quite frankly, it would be top-tier. I'm just saying that we already have some extremely powerful things in civ4 either vanilla (Russia, English) or otherwise (Romans, Boudica, Darius, HC). Look at Cathy in vanilla or Romans on pangaea or Darius with horses or HC with a neighbour in striking distance.

Give the ind/phil leader a late uu/ub and start them with fishing and hunting. If you gave ind/phil leader myst/ag along with quechuas, yeah that would be overpowered but otherwise, I think they wouldn't be totally broken.

 

[Shadowcrow]

@ Otaku
I'll admit I don't have a great deal of playing experience, because frankly I don't get a lot of time devoted to Civ (I got Uni and it drains on fun time *cries*), But theoretically I would imagine, that while Creative doesn't direct provide such a great benefit post Ren. Its benefit comes across from its ability to dominate early if used properly, and hence set you up for a large advantage late game.

Theoretically, with creative you don't have to waste time going for monuments (which has been annoyance in my case) or other culture buildings early in the game, and have a far better chance at securing better territory from your neighbors (in the case of really big maps it wouldn't matter). This leads to advantages such as better land -> Better Commerce/Production -> Higher research/ stronger army which essentially should lead to a better and better lead as time progresses.

Of course like I said, I haven't tested that theory, and most of my other experience comes from here.

 

[MyOtherName]

That "problem" is also the benefit of Creative. You don't need to change your play style to take advantage of the trait. Creative kicks in every time you settle or capture a city, period.

To take full advantage of creative, you have to play in a way that leverages its benefits.

If, for example, my play style is to build two settlers, turtle, and beeline to rifling, then what has creative given me? I got the benefit of my cities becoming fully productive up to ten or twenty turns sooner... but I did nothing with that benefit, and thus I have gained little or no advantage.


The benefit of creative is automatic, but turning that benefit into a lasting advantage takes effort, just like every other trait.

 

[Shadowcrow]

To take full advantage of creative, you have to play in a way that leverages its benefits.

If, for example, my play style is to build two settlers, turtle, and beeline to rifling, then what has creative given me? I got the benefit of my cities becoming fully productive up to ten or twenty turns sooner... but I did nothing with that benefit, and thus I have gained little or no advantage.

But if I alter my plan to build 5 quick axemen, then my turtle & tech strategy is still ahead of schedule, and I can still acquire a fourth (and maybe a fifth) city to my empire early.


The benefit of creative is automatic, but turning that benefit into a lasting advantage takes effort, just like every other trait.

But.. You say that you get you cities productive 10 or 20 turns sooner. Is that not itself a lasting advantage. I may be wrong but I think that because you set yourself earlier, thats another 10 or 20 turns you can use to further you economic advantage. Once you've actually "built up" your economy you no longer incur the costs in time/turns/production which comes with building up your economy, assuming you run parallel with you opponent before the traits bonus (you should be aiming to go faster) thats and extra 20 turns in which your expanding your military or scientific advantage and you opponant is still lagged trying to finish their economy.

By the time they have "built up", you already have the lead and they have to move faster then you to catch up.

Then again, I might be thinking more in terms of an RTS as opposed to civ, but I still think the concept applies.

 

[Winston Hughes]

I am experienced at wonderspam strats and I can see the synergy.

I didn't say you're not experienced, I said you're not that experienced - meaning that, like me, you're not one of those guys who spends their whole waking life perfecting the wonderspam approach.

The synergy is just too blatant in my book - even with no UU or UB, those wonderspam boys would have too big an advantage when using this combo.

Imagine a trait which gave cheap libraries and +1 to every hamlet, then combine it with Financial and put it in the hands of DaveMcW. (Okay, that would be a bit much, but you get the idea).

 

[futurehermit]

But in the grand scheme of things, who cares if a couple of extreme experts can beat up on deity AIs a little easier? That's kind of my point. If you pick Rome on Pangaea and add extra AIs to the map to make it more packed that's overpowered, but you could do it. You can also avoid playing as Rome, like I do.

 

[Perugia]

But is that bonus enough to justify Creative?

IMO, traits should first be judged on their primary bonus -- which in the case of Creative is +2 .

Sadly, Creative's primary bonus is generally weak -- finding abusive strength in only certain situations and almost always declining in usefulness fairly early in the game.

I think you underestimate the hidden bonus that Monkeyfinger describes. Here is a calculation to illustrate the point.

Initial Benefit

City gets +2 cpt (city cultural radius and defense benefit)
City tile gets +12 cpt [22 instead of 10] (goes towards nationality%, used for revolts & motherland unhappiness)
Other 8 tiles get +2 cpt (goes towards nationality%)
That's a total increase of 30 cpt [28 hidden]

Then after the first border pop:

City gets +2 cpt
City tile gets +2 cpt [22 instead of 20]
Inner 8 tiles get +12 cpt [22 instead of 10]
Outer 12 tiles get +2 cpt
That's a total increase of 124 cpt [122 hidden]

Then after the second border pop:

City gets +2 cpt
City tile gets +2 cpt [32 instead of 30]
Inner 8 tiles get +2 cpt [22 instead of 20]
Outer 12 tiles get +12 cpt [22 instead of 10]
Third ring of 16 tiles get +2 cpt
That's a total increase of 196 cpt [194 hidden]

etc.

This calculation may not be quite accurate but I hope you get the point. You can only simulate the +2cpt in the city with other culture sources, the hidden benefit can't be simulated. It also remains effective throughout the game as the greatest impact amounting to a net gain of 12 per turn per tile in the second outermost ring across your entire border. As such Creative remains much better at applying culture to tiles on the map which translates to more territory and resources. Domination anyone?

 

[shyuhe]

@futurehermit

Because it's the same reason why industrious is rated differently based upon the level of difficulty that you play with. If you're going to scale the utility of one trait (industrious) based on difficulty, you should scale the analysis of creative as well.

I warmonger a lot but I don't think creative is great because of the border pops. I think it's great because of the half-price libraries. It's really only at the highest levels that quick border popping and culture wars become an issue.

 

[OTAKUjbski]

Wow ... this thread really moved ... I'll keep my response short this time.

That "problem" is also the benefit of Creative. You don't need to change your play style to take advantage of the trait. Creative kicks in every time you settle or capture a city, period.

...

This is actually the strength of the Creative trait. You don't have to completely alter your strategy around it. You can play your "normal" game, and Creative will automatically accelerate your results.

...

I actually find the opposite to be true. Creative simply "works" with any strategy, while Industrious doesn't give you the option to go wonder-spamming, it demands it.

One man's trash is another man's treasure, eh? I like for traits to offer (even demand) different strategies and approaches, so that explains a lot.

Domination victory is a perfect example of where Creative continues to produce for you even to the very end stages of a game. I wouldn't consider the Domination scenario "rare" or "extreme." For me, it is the most common victory condition.

I agree Creative can certainly make Domination that much simpler, but I think it comes down to personal preference, because I'd rather have Organized for Domination.

I actually consider Creative to be a solid "middle-tier" trait ...

I'm more inclined to agree to that after all the discussion in this thread, but IMO, Creative is probably a little lower than you'd place it (but still above Aggressive).

I like the way futurehermit put it a few posts back:

Spoiler :

I see phil/fin/ind/agg as traits that define your strategy/opening.

I see cre/exp/org/imp/pro/cha/spir as traits that support your strategy/opening.

Agg isn't generally considered as powerful, because early warfare isn't always an option. Great people, wonders, and commerce are always options.

The top leaders imo are ones that have 2 of fin/ind/phi (liz/hc). The next tier of leaders are ones that have 1 of fin/ind/phi and one of the "good" support traits (agg/cre/org/cha/spir). The next tier of leaders are ones that don't have fin/ind/phi, but have 2 of the "good" support traits or have find/ind/phi and a "bad" support trait (I would make an exception for the mayans because of the synergy between fin and exp). The bottom tier of leaders are ones that have 2 of the "bad" support traits (e.g., joao, HRE). This is adjusted somewhat depending on the uu/ub of the given leader.

I find the REXing ability creative allows to be really advantageous. E.g., I love REXing hard with Willem and cottaging up to pay the maintenance. I love REXing hard with Cathy since settlers are so cheap. Paying the maintenance is somewhat harder, but she has stronger rush potential than Willem imo.

I think Acidsatyr said it best when he said that after a certain point in the game, it's not about traits anymore, but how much land you control. He valued creative really high as well, before I came to value it highly. Now I understand more what he was talking about because once you have enough land it is only a matter of time before you win. Sure, financial will help you win sooner, but getting the land is more important imo. That's not to say that I would ever rank creative > financial, but I would never downplay the really significant impact it can have on your early game which can be leveraged into a strong position going forward. I'd take a strong opening over strong long-term potential any day of the week. I rarely lose games in the long run. I lose them in the first couple of eras (partly that is because I don't have the perseverance to fight back tooth and nail if I fall behind )

 

[OTAKUjbski]

I think you underestimate the hidden bonus that Monkeyfinger describes.

I'm well aware of Culture Mechanics.

However, your argument is based on the idea that more is always better -- which I don't agree with.

Not every game needs that extra . In games that do need it, not every city needs it. (I would rather use a local solution for the local problem than a global one.)

When presented the option, I simply won't choose Creative over other, more generally useful traits like Organized, Spiritual and Charismatic

 

[Porphyrius]

So mid difficulties players remain true to their wonder (and industrius) addictions and contempt the creative trait, while high difficulties players find in the same trait one of few points in the game deserving to be addicted to.
Makes sense to me.


To me creative is definitely a top tier trait, shaded only from philo really. But i suppose at faster speeds/ mid difficulties/ map types that give plentiful room to expand it can be seen a bit weaker.
I systematically get better results from Pericles than Lizzy though, so creative means a lot ot me. Sure Lizzy will eventually catch up post renaissance (and get ahead but i likely have a dominating position by then) but she 'll also mess up weak starts more frequently.

Its hard to explain how crative is leveraged without a specific map, or to measure how much of a boost it nets early on with numbers. It is true that by the time one starts laying courthouses, has over 6 cities and gets early medieval techs the creative is allready past its golder era. It remains handy till music though especially if you war intensivelly and need to deal with new "members" of your empire.



I think most people that underestimate the creative trait just dont play the early game aggresivelly enough to reap its benefits.

I also strongly disagree with the implications that early warmongering doesnt match well with creative. Axe rushes at 2000-1500BC and and cats subdueing still archer(than lbow) defended cities at high levels are guaranteed by creative more than any other trait.
For me creative is great to push you over your foes in the first 1-2 wars. After that conquered land handily takes over boosting later efforts.

 

[Winston Hughes]

But in the grand scheme of things, who cares if a couple of extreme experts can beat up on deity AIs a little easier? That's kind of my point. If you pick Rome on Pangaea and add extra AIs to the map to make it more packed that's overpowered, but you could do it. You can also avoid playing as Rome, like I do.

Sorry, that's not really what I was talking about (sacrificed clarity for flippancy, methinks).

I meant that for anyone who usually plays their game that way (and so gets really good at it, relative to their overall skill level), Ind/Phi is grossly overpowered when compared to any other combo. The DaveMcW example was meant to show that there's no equivalent CE combo with the existing traits.

btw, we've gone rather OT here (which is ironic given we're OT on the Ind/Phi thread as well )

 

[OTAKUjbski]

So mid difficulties players remain true to their wonder (and industrius) addictions and contempt the creative trait, while high difficulties players find in the same trait one of few points in the game deserving to be addicted to.

Define "mid" and "high" difficulties.