Assuming HC is the best leader in the game, who is #2, and why?

[Kullervo]

There's a lot more to Org than just the bonuses you get from the trait itself though... and those aren't small to begin with! With large empires around the Renaissance, you can be saving around 30GPT, which is quite a bit of military power or a couple of resources you can trade for. And that's probably a quite pessimistic estimate. I think that people are rather underestimating how much that maintenance decrease grants you, and what it equals. You directly save gold from Org, and that's something fairly unique that other traits don't offer. I mean, of course, you can leverage cheap temples with Spi, and fast civic switches, and eventually you can come up with a way that X leads to Y leads to Z and it saves you gold, but it's not that direct, clear-cut benefit you get from Org. Org just seems... well, not situational, there's not many situations I can think of which would not benefit from having the Organized trait. If you're Financial but don't have many river tiles or luxuries, you're not going to get the full benefit. If you're Spiritual but somehow the dreaded Gandhi/Mansa lovefest on another continent grabs all the religions, you won't get the full benefit. If you're Aggressive but start out isolated or with only a couple of strong defensive neighbours... or Sitting 'I have to settle on a hill' Bull... you won't get the full benefit. But that maintenance reduction is always there.

And I still stand by cheap courthouses being one of the main benefits of Org. Sooner or later you'll want courthouses in most if not all of your cities, especially if you do some colonization or... ah, repossession of foreign lands for the purpose of a greater good.

I'm not the best of players, so maybe I'm not leveraging the other traits to their maximum potential, or maybe it's really late here and I'm talking out of the wrong end of my body, but Org just doesn't seem to go wrong for me. I'd rate it... perhaps a tad below Industrious, but still really high on the trait list.

 

[cseanny]

..let me just pick out this one line, cos that's where a big problem with this argument lies. You cannot assume ORG allowed this cityIt's just not true, there are too many ways to make gold.

Lets' simplify things because there seems to be confusion. It doesn't make a difference where the gold is coming from. Why not? Because the ORG leader will in fact be saving more gold per turn no matter what, period. It will always be true. You will always save Xamount of gold and can always use that to either settle another city, keep research higher, accumulate more gold for deficit research, etc etc.

I'm not the best of players, so maybe I'm not leveraging the other traits to their maximum potential, or maybe it's really late here and I'm talking out of the wrong end of my body, but Org just doesn't seem to go wrong for me. I'd rate it... perhaps a tad below Industrious, but still really high on the trait list.

But that maintenance reduction is always there.

It's a reduction in civic cost. I always say the same thing out of general habit. But you're not wrong! I'm trying to find an old thread, maybe back in 06/07 where quite a few very good people gave ORG some love. I'm almost positive Futurehermit was one of them, along with Obsolete. I know for a fact Iranon loves ORG and has written quite a bit about its strength, especially in his style of play. I even remember AZ giving it some love in one of his videos (although we all know he love FIN).

Definitely a Top Tier Trait.........so back on topic:

In tough games my absolute favorite leader is actually Roosevelt. IND/ORG leads to some massive mid-late game production potential and once the beast kicks in cant be stopped.

 

[sampsa]

Kullervo, as a Finn I have to say I like your name btw, you are describing a situation where Org is a good trait. Someone earlier put it very well when saying something along the lines that Org is a good trait when the game is already won. If you have a large empire around the Renaissance, you could win the game even without Org. I think the traits that do the most to get you that "technically winning position" (I am aware that that might mean very different things to players of different skill) are the best ones. If Org helps you to win games that you wouldn't win without it, it's a good trait for you, no doubt.

Cseanny, I don't think it's necessary to try to find old threads especially from the time when the understanding of the game wasn't very highly developed, to put it politely.

 

[cseanny]

Cseanny, I don't think it's necessary to try to find old threads especially from the time when the understanding of the game wasn't very highly developed, to put it politely.

I don't buy into this for one second. The understanding of traits and their values hasn't changed much, if at all. Strategies and general understanding, sure. FIN, IND, PHI, and ORG were strong then and they're certainly strong now.

Someone earlier put it very well when saying something along the lines that Org is a good trait when the game is already won.

Big disagreement with this. Although ORG (and many other traits can fall into this category).......too many times to count I've been in a close game where I needed to super settle (every 3 squares) my land in order to gain the needed production that would let me catch up and win later. ORG drastically cuts the civic cost from the population boost in conjunction with cheap CHs. Try founding 10-15 cites virtually at once pre SP....and then regular price Chs and see how that works out.

Ever wonder why so many ridiculous high scores and HoF records have been set with Darius? What are his traits again? FIN/ORG. Yes there's Immortals. Yes there's FIN. But then there is the early civic savings that don't just stop there. Think of all those conquered cities and huge population jump (even more civic savings) and then the need for CHs.

Am I the only one who finds it just a little bit ironic lol that quite a few people here seem to basically be calling ORG a rather weak trait........now this is ironic because the Leader who is no. 1 in this Poll is non other than:

Darius (quite a big lead too!). What are his traits again? FIN and ORG. So fine. I get it. It's blatantly obvious. Some people see little to no value in ORG. All I can say is I think you people are bonkers!! LoL

 

[sinimusta]

I think that the fact that org is good for HoF actually supports the point that org is good when you're in a position to win already. But winning and winning HoF slots are two different things.

 

[sampsa]

Relax, you are not the momma bear and I am not here to take your cubs away.

 

[cseanny]

I think that the fact that org is good for HoF actually supports the point that org is good when you're in a position to win already. But winning and winning HoF slots are two different things.

Quite the opposite! How many post have we seen that people say something like "When I play Darius I feel like I'm playing 1 or 2 levels easier"? A lot. Why? Because his UU and Traits make the game easier to play. This doesn't mean by a long shot you're already in a winning position (read my post directly above in regards to supersettling).

What do we say to a new player trying to win on Monarch or Emperor (Immortal.....whatever) for the first time? We could say use Inca. Or we could say use Darius! Those guys aren't trying to win faster. They're just trying to win.

Relax, you are not the momma bear and I am not here to take your cubs away

But what if I want to be the Mama bear, lol!!

EDIT: LoL. I have more post in this one thread than I have in the entire last year. Okay. Fine. I'll step away from the keyboard. But some of you people are crazy I say.

 

[elitetroops]

What do we say to a new player trying to win on Monarch or Emperor (Immortal.....whatever) for the first time? We could say use Inca. Or we could say use Darius! Those guys aren't trying to win faster. They're just trying to win.

I'd actually say use Willem, because CRE makes up for many beginner mistakes.

Anyway, very interesting discussion on ORG! Haven't played it in a while, maybe I should to find out if I really like it or not.

FIN/IND/PHI/ORG are often mentioned as the top traits. How come then that Roosevelt and Freddy have been given no love in the poll? Is it just that those who like ORG value Darius higher than those two (because of UU, I suppose)?

 

[Rainy Days]

@cseanny:

It's not that everyone says Org is bad though, I would rank it right after Fin myself. Usually Fin is slightly stronger in the early game but it is more land dependent then Org. People are just disagreeing with you claiming that org allows you to settle more cities.

 

[Izuul]

FIN/IND/PHI/ORG are often mentioned as the top traits. How come then that Roosevelt and Freddy have been given no love in the poll? Is it just that those who like ORG value Darius higher than those two (because of UU, I suppose)?

The American UU and UB suck. Same issue with the German leaders who also have pretty strong traits.

 

[Iranon]

FIN vs ORG is open to computation.
Under normal play, they break even at 30-40% of population working FIN-boosted tiles, until there is a big difference between weighted gold multipliers and inflation.
Closer to 30% if we favour low-cost civics, vertical growth, and city specialisation. Closer to 40% if we favour more expensive civics, balanced cities and drag the average city size down with horizontal expansion. This does not into account ORGs building discounts.

The rest comes down to things we can't compute easily: details of the individual game, playstyle preferences and so on. "Which trait is better?" may not be a terribly useful question, because they could be leveraged in very different ways:
FIN encourages a sustainable commerce-based economy, whereas ORG doesn't care about the kind of yield and subtly encourages us to stretch our economy very thin.

They are close enough in power that I'm wary when players rank one very high and the other very low. We'd need to be very set in our playstyle, play only certain types of predictable maps... or be mistaken about the mechanics.

*

Regarding CRE again:

I like to do as much formal analyses as practical, then reduce things to incomparables. A rigorous assessment of CRE is difficult, attempting it requires so many qualifiers that I struggle to express myself... sorry for the stilted language in earlier posts.

My misgivings: Aggressive overlapping for the core may be desirable anyway, throwaway blocking cities or chopping out wonders where warranted can deal with AI culture pressure.
Problem solved in a fiddlier way, and "not having to do this" is an asset. Hard to quantify though. How valuable this is depends on how often you can justify solving those problems by spending 15 hammers on a monument. I usually can't.

Assessing cheap libraries and their usefulness in rapid expansion: I may have a stricter definition for "rapid" than others. If multiple libraries do anything beyond adding culture, an appreciable part of my established cities is dedicated to something other than founding new cities and paying the bills associated with many small, currently underdeveloped cities. I may be expanding, but I'm taking my sweet time.

I think it's a little below par, I definitely rate it below EXP and SPI... but if I have CRE and an economy trait, I certainly won't complain.

 

[cseanny]

I may have a stricter definition for "rapid" than others.

For me it's zero slider after Writing and using beakers via scientist to fuel my way to Alpha (then scientist + build research) and then Currency. The accumulation of gpt always gets smaller and smaller until I'm bringing in negative gpt. Careful planning is required to reach Currency before we go on strike.

Immortal and below the goal is 8-10 cities nlt than 800 BC.......when the land, surrounding AIs, and my own Leader make REXing an option.

 

[MegaLurker]

There's a lot more to Org than just the bonuses you get from the trait itself though... and those aren't small to begin with! With large empires around the Renaissance, you can be saving around 30GPT, which is quite a bit of military power or a couple of resources you can trade for. And that's probably a quite pessimistic estimate. I think that people are rather underestimating how much that maintenance decrease grants you, and what it equals. You directly save gold from Org, and that's something fairly unique that other traits don't offer. I mean, of course, you can leverage cheap temples with Spi, and fast civic switches, and eventually you can come up with a way that X leads to Y leads to Z and it saves you gold, but it's not that direct, clear-cut benefit you get from Org. Org just seems... well, not situational, there's not many situations I can think of which would not benefit from having the Organized trait. If you're Financial but don't have many river tiles or luxuries, you're not going to get the full benefit. If you're Spiritual but somehow the dreaded Gandhi/Mansa lovefest on another continent grabs all the religions, you won't get the full benefit. If you're Aggressive but start out isolated or with only a couple of strong defensive neighbours... or Sitting 'I have to settle on a hill' Bull... you won't get the full benefit. But that maintenance reduction is always there.

Organized gives you very, very little benefit in any game in which you maintain a compact empire until a gunpowder breakout.

The benefit of financial over organized it that it actually gives you commerce, and fast. Saving gpt and making more gpt are not equal, you can't forget that. People like the financial trait because its so easy to use.

Spiritual is useful in every single game, no matter what. To say otherwise would be to totally misunderstand how strongly you can strategize around switching civics constantly. It obviously loses a lot of it's value if you're isolated, which coincidentally where organized gains a lot of value.

And I still stand by cheap courthouses being one of the main benefits of Org. Sooner or later you'll want courthouses in most if not all of your cities, especially if you do some colonization or... ah, repossession of foreign lands for the purpose of a greater good.

The only reason I can think of that you would ever want courthouses in most of you cities is for late-ish game tech stealing. Even at the reduced cost you never want to invest those hammers if it's not saving you quite a bit (4-5gpt seems to be the rule of thumb a lot of good players use). Even in a very large empire you don't want to overdo it, because you just build the forbidden palace in the right place and that kills most of the benefit you got out of the courthouses. Then you reach communism and your courthouses are effectively obsolete.

I'm not the best of players, so maybe I'm not leveraging the other traits to their maximum potential, or maybe it's really late here and I'm talking out of the wrong end of my body, but Org just doesn't seem to go wrong for me. I'd rate it... perhaps a tad below Industrious, but still really high on the trait list.

I don't think anybody has tried to say that organized is one of the weak traits. It's just not one of the best. Unless you're on a map where you can expand peacefully to well over a dozen cities with lots of food, then it's very strong. That usually means isolation, though. Or emperor difficulty. Otherwise it just doesn't compare to the heavy-hitters for Deity: industrious, philosophical, financial, spiritual. I honestly think if you don't think spiritual belongs in that group you're not using it to it's potential. I put organized in the second tier with creative, maybe a bit better than charismatic, expansive, imperialistic.

Charismatic is kind of underrated. Strong early game trait and makes warring easier all game long.

 

[Fippy]

Charismatic is kind of underrated. Strong early game trait and makes warring easier all game long.

I was waiting for somebody besides me to say that :b

 

[Izuul]

I like charismatic infinitely more than imperialistic.

 

[fed1943]

I agree with MegaLurker and also with Iranon.

"My" best traits (i.e. the traits I more or less know to play with):
Fin, Philo; Spi, Ind; Cre.

Let's try and see when they do Not work.

Fin needs hapiness and, if not happy minerals, enough food.

Philo needs a lot of food.

Spi needs close company or otherwise good map.

Ind needs a map/neighbours who give some free time.

Cre allows to take the most of the map...if there are enough to be taken from.


And wiser players will say more and better.

 

[Kullervo]

I agree about Charismatic being an amazing trait, especially that +1 happiness for monuments, which can be huge in the very early game if you have the hammers to spare.

Back to the topic, though... I'd say that Darius is the BEST leader apart from HC, but far from my favourite. Games with Darius are really easy to play because of all the money you'll be rolling in because traits and all the corpses you'll be bathing in because Immortals, which is why I guess I find Darius a bit boring to play as. I find that I need to self-nerf to keep things interesting (though of course there are those games when you are out of luck and you need every advantage you can get.) Also, however, I consider Pericles to be a highly underrated leader. the Greek UB is, I think, one of the better ones in the game, making the Colosseum, which I normally rarely build, an actually really desirable building. He's also great at, say, starting an early war and just parking units on a hill by your enemies' cities so they don't risk sending out settlers. In general, he has a lot of interesting features which combine to create a really flexible and strong leader.

 

[Iranon]

@cseanny: That probably wouldn't match my definition of fast expansion.

Slider location by itself is meaningless. If 20% of my population is devoted to running scientists (including all food tiles worse than flood plains that feed them. Including flood plains and better if they could feed mines instead), I'm not expanding anywhere near as quickly as I could.
There is no magical difference between a 0% science empire running scientists and a 60% science empire running merchants if they have the same yields bar generating different GPs.



@ MegaLurker: ORG and FIN scale linearly with empire size, i.e. lack of space should inhibit both equally. If there is a difference, I'd argue that FIN is hurt more: If I'm pressed for space I want to claim as much as I can, i.e. I'll run heavier on production and lighter on commerce in the early game - to the detriment of FIN.

The chief difference in saving GPT and making GPT lies in multipliers, and how well you can exploit them. For typical games, it's easy to take into account and high-commerce empires can't take advantage of it very well.

Assume an ideal situation for FIN: Large-ish cities, 50% of population working high-commerce tiles (leaving the other half for specialists, food, production and new cottages combined), you actually have gold multipliers where they matter, run low-cost civics... and you can expect FIN to do more for your bottom line than ORG. Around 50% more at 1AD, possibly more later (gold multipliers grow quicker than inflation, you may want 0-cost civics eventually).

Expand hard with new cities dragging the average size down, go high on production and support your economy with failgold/specialists where practical, run expensive civics... and Organized can be more than 50% ahead of FIN, in addition to its building discounts.

They are very nicely balanced. ORG usually does more for me, occasionally FIN is ahead is by a comfortable margin.

*

But really, traits are a small part of this. One of (ORG, FIN, IND, PHI) and none of (AGG, PRO), and any power difference is minimal. Certainly eclipsed by starting techs and uniques.

I like ORG the most by a smidgeon, and I don't like CRE and CHA as much as the other support traits... but that has more to do with preferred playstyle. Something that gives you +5 cookies for something you'd do anyway puts you ahead by 5 cookies. Something that gives you +5 cookies for something you wouldn't normally do may have any value between 0 and 5 cookies.

Darius isn't a contender for No1 because FIN/ORG is better than other combinations, he is a contender because the package works.
The trait combination by itself would be too swingy for my tastes - two economy traits that need expansion to shine, usually I'd prefer either of them and EXP. Good starting techs and a rush-capable UU make the difference: Immortals may not be as long-lived as War Chariots, but they rush just fine. UB is good too.
If we have the space - strongest economy in the game.
If we are boxed in - set for a rush, strong potential for the aftermath.
If we are stuck on some dinky island - best there is for an archipelago, still good for a single island (IND or PHI may be more welcome here)

 

[cseanny]

Slider location by itself is meaningless. If 20% of my population is devoted to running scientists (including all food tiles worse than flood plains that feed them. Including flood plains and better if they could feed mines instead), I'm not expanding anywhere near as quickly as I could

This is were we'll have to disagree. There's a direct correlation between maintenance cost and rate of expansion. If wek focus only on production initial expansion would be quicker but by the time you reached the finish line you'd fall behind.

Multiple early scientist allows one to throw the slider to zero quicker, therefore gaining more gpt sooner. Then, as scientist fuel research towards Alpha we aggressively settle everything else, faster and longer due to our larger bank roll and better tech.

But I agree with you about ORG

 

[Fippy]

Big difference between Org and Fin for me would be..that if you have just 1 good spot with Fin, for your Bur. Cap, you will gain much more than some saved gpt.
Ofc Fin does not have building bonuses, but just saying.