Balancing the Traits

[Gufnork]

Organized is never more useful than Financial. Ever. No way, no how. In my latest game, Organized would save me 37 gold. 60 with the most expensive civics available. Guess how much research I would have gotten from Financial (I would have gotten more gold, but I prefer research). Come on, guess.


272 research. Financial is 4.5 times more useful in Organizeds optimal conditions. Anyone claiming that those traits are balanced is full of ****.

 

[Jazz_Newton]

Once again, you're not factoring in the REAL cost.

Sure the financial trait could be earning you 272 coin/research, but it could be costing you 6 population in every city (untested number but definitely possible) as well as more production, more specialists, better infrastructure, more culture, and stacks more GPP.

In my current game I'm not an organised civ, but if I was organised I'd be saving 50 gpt from civics... and at the moment i'm only at around the Military Tradition part of the tech tree. There's still a LOT of game to go.

The way i think of it is this:
Financial = SACRIFICING growth for crazy income - Money is the end result
Organised = income boost that supports and ENCOURAGES growth and development - Money is the means to an end result

Obviously financial is going to be the better tech if you want money... Organised is about more than a financial boost though.

 

[Gufnork]

Sure the financial trait could be earning you 272 coin/research, but it could be costing you 6 population in every city (untested number but definitely possible) as well as more production, more specialists, better infrastructure, more culture, and stacks more GPP.

Que? It doesn't cost me a thing. It adds a commerce in each square already producing two. It doesn't decrease a thing. You don't sacrifice growth one bit. Organized might be more useful if you build farms and workshops everywhere, but a civic that's good if you suck isn't my idea of a good civic.

 

[Lord Chambers]

Que? It doesn't cost me a thing. It adds a commerce in each square already producing two. It doesn't decrease a thing. You don't sacrifice growth one bit.

So you aren't building cottages? At all?

 

[MSTK]

Who's the odd person who voted to downgrade the Organized trait?

EDIT: Made the post a bit less biased.

 

[bingen]

It is way too early to tell. AFAIK civics cost a lot more on higher difficulty levels, maybe organized is really good there. As for spiritual, one of the unmentioned additional advantages is that you have a shot at an early religion.

 

[dh_epic]

Even if you factor in farm use over cottage use, organized still doesn't come close to financial. Why? Because you're guaranteed to get great use out of financial, and sometimes it can even be ridiculously powerful. Organized is useful at best, and often useless if circumstance puts you in a situation where the cheap civics make the most sense.

There's a lot of ground to make up, and even if you assume organized people can get a few more population in their cities, you're not touching the huge multiplier that financial civs get.

 

[Jazz_Newton]

Que? It doesn't cost me a thing. It adds a commerce in each square already producing two. It doesn't decrease a thing. You don't sacrifice growth one bit. Organized might be more useful if you build farms and workshops everywhere, but a civic that's good if you suck isn't my idea of a good civic.

If you're getting an extra 272 commerce, then I'm gonna guess that you've got cottages everywhere. And if you've got cottages everywhere, then what you've done is sacrificed food and production (but especially food) in order to boost your income.

In the right city with representation running, your food bonus can translate into specialists that provide 3 science, 3 GPP and a production or commerce bonus each.

EDIT: FYI, I'm not even debating Financial vs. Organization at this point. I'm really looking at the argument that Financial is overpowered - and I believe that a lot of the time a player who isn't financial can adequately build a strong economy while still making use of their own trait. Yes, Financial is useful for the whole game, but once cities start to max out (14-18 pop for cottage spammers, closer to 20 or above for everyone else) then things start to change. While financial doesn't become 'less useful' per se, i do believe that it does lose power simply because other civs can 'narrow the gap' using specialists and other things.

OBVIOUSLY Financial is still going to be better than the other civs in regards to money... if it wasn't, it'd be a sucky trait. So I'm not arguing that other traits can out-commerce financial. I am arguing that the gap mightn't be as much as some people think.

 

[Legal_My_Deagle]

Basically, it would seem that Fin gives the bigger money boost, but Organized still saves a lot more money than you would think, saves you from having to build cottages everywhere to do it, and gives you miscellaneuous bonuses that come with the civics and you dont have to put a town in every square to get it, when you could be getting food and hammers.

I mean, when I think about it, I usually end up taking some of free traits only because the ones with High upkeep are too expensive.

 

[Gufnork]

You don't get it. I'm playing Cyrus, Expansionist/Creative. 272 research is what I would have gotten if I suddenly became Financial. 37 gold is what I would save if I suddenly became Organized. And no, Civics aren't a problem on higher difficulties. This is on Immortal difficulty. The only redeeming feature of Organized is the cheaper Court- and Lighthouses, which is the best discount.

One farm lets you keep one extra specialist (not taking happiness or health into account). He can produce six beakers and 3 GPP. One Town produce one hammer and seven coins. That translates roughly into 12 beakers. Add happiness and health into the mix and farms aren't very useful, unless you really love GP.

Spiritual does not mean you have a shot at an early religion. This is not Civ 3, your traits does not determine which techs you start with.

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

Well obviously I can't change your mind - and its true - being financial will make more money for you. But step back and look at it his way -

1. Financial really comes into play in the long run - not until usually the late eras do you get the full effect.

2. Organized is much earlier in the game, and lets you run those expensive civics. Because during the ancient/classical eras financial is almost non existant - Organized helps much more.

3. Because Organized helps much earlier, and because Civics are based on empire size, Organized can expand faster.

4. Financial requires Lighthouses to work sea tiles efficiently, but Organized gets them at half price, in addition to half cost Courthouses which eqaul huge early expansion.

So I still stand by what I say that Organized is not underpowered, and Financial is not overpowered. Comparing the benefits of Organized vs Financial only in one era is not looking at the big picture.

 

[Abacus]

I just did some analysis. Before I wrote this, I really didn't like organized, but something I hadn't considered before is that the organized trait lets you run closer to 100% research while using high cost civics. This boosts research in your science cities, and really, does commerce matter one bit outside your science cities?

At 1020AD in a recent game on immortal, as Elizabeth:

The financial trait gave me 12 additional commerce (pre banks, libraries, etc) per turn.

Organized would have saved me 13 gold (post banks...) per turn with the civics I wanted at that point.

Suprisingly close, but that's probably the high point for organized. The civics I switched to were all medium-high upkeep. And I still had a lot of undeveloped territory (I never had time to build many workers).

Ten turns earlier, financial was giving me 12 commerce, while organized would have saved me just 4 gold per turn with my primitive civics.

From another perspective, my science city was surrounded by towns, where financial was adding 9 beakers per turn when I was using primitive civics. After I switched civics, I was forced to drop my science rate, which cost me 25 (!) beakers per turn. So maybe organized actually wins there.

Considering the two options (on higher difficulties) are approximately:

1) Choose financial, improve lots of cottages, and stick with primitive civics while getting a lot of extra commerce, but switching to high cost civics forces a lower research rate (which would slow research in your science city more than financial helps).
2) Choose organized, build cheap courthouses, improve what you want, and get the benefits of high cost civics, with less commerce but a high research rate (speeding research in your science city).

It's not so clear.

 

[dh_epic]

1. Financial really comes into play in the long run - not until usually the late eras do you get the full effect.

Not true. A cottage on a river starts generating extra gold almost right away. And hopefully, assuming you've put your city near some key food resources, your city is still growing in the meantime.

2. Organized is much earlier in the game, and lets you run those expensive civics. Because during the ancient/classical eras financial is almost non existant - Organized helps much more.

3. Because Organized helps much earlier, and because Civics are based on empire size, Organized can expand faster.

Cottages mature long before expensive civics really come into play. And organized only gets rolling when you have a larger empire with higher civics costs, at which point the game is already over.

Of course, organized becomes more valuable if you're playing a later start (e.g.: industrial), but that's a whole other animal.

4. Financial requires Lighthouses to work sea tiles efficiently, but Organized gets them at half price, in addition to half cost Courthouses which eqaul huge early expansion.

It's true, organized does have some of the best half-cost buildings.

So I still stand by what I say that Organized is not underpowered, and Financial is not overpowered. Comparing the benefits of Organized vs Financial only in one era is not looking at the big picture.

First off, I think you underestimate just how quickly financial can get things going. Secondly, you assume that all eras are equal. They're not. The ancient era is more important than the classical era, and so on.

Not that the AI is the best indicator of good strategy... but you only have to look that Mansa Musa and Victoria are often two of the leading civilizations. And Mansa Musa often does so with a handfull of cities.

Financial needs to be toned down, and organized needs to be toned up. It's not a huge chasm between the two, but still some kind of significant change is needed.

 

[walkerjks]

Not true. A cottage on a river starts generating extra gold almost right away. And hopefully, assuming you've put your city near some key food resources, your city is still growing in the meantime.

To expand on this - at the beginning of the game, a cottage on a river is +2 commerce, so being financial adds an additional +1 commerce, for an effective +50% commerce improvement for that tile.

Late in the game when you have all the cottage improvement techs and civics, that same fully developed cottage on a tile is +8 commerce. Financial adds an additional +1 commerce, for a 12.5% increase.

In my experience, financial is huge in the ancient era if you start taking advantage of it. Sure, you need to exploit the cows and pigs and wheat around your city first, but rather than allow the AI to start using forests next, force it into using your cottages. Your tech will explode early on (though at a cost to shields).

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

Not true. A cottage on a river starts generating extra gold almost right away. And hopefully, assuming you've put your city near some key food resources, your city is still growing in the meantime.

Cottages mature long before expensive civics really come into play. And organized only gets rolling when you have a larger empire with higher civics costs, at which point the game is already over.

I still don't think you guys see it - would anything so blantantly unbalanaced escape the testers???? Nobody will acknowledge Sullla's reponse!

While you're running around putting cottages on everything lol, Here's what I (NOT the AI) could do:

-My production happy cities with Theology and Vassalage (remember, I'm Organized so these wont hurt me) will rapidly build a military just for you.

-Before you know it, Hordes of angry fanatics will devestate your land, pillaging all your precious cottages

Now lets look at your options:

-You have an overabundance of gold - big deal - we're not modern so you can't rush out a military. Sure you may have tech, but will it be enough to buy peace?

When you lose all your cottages etc, what are you going to do?

Another important point is that just because you can run around with bags of cash to flaunt to the AI doesn't mean a good human player is going to let a financial player build up. No one is that stupid (ok maybe some people are )

 

[Abacus]

Everyone blasts the organized trait, but aggressive is pretty weak too.

I'd rather have a few extra gold per turn from organized than the combat 1 upgrade only for melee and gunpowder units, with nothing for archers or tanks. Sure, the cheaper barracks are nice, but it only saves 30 shields, and if a city can't produce that in a couple turns a barracks probably won't help much.

 

[walkerjks]

-You have an overabundance of gold - big deal - we're not modern so you can't rush out a military. Sure you may have tech, but will it be enough to buy peace?

You got it right in the second sentence - we have an overabundance of tech. The beauty of commerce is that it's even more fungible than food or shields.

You are absolutely correct that cottages are far more vulnerable to war than other improvements, since you only get the full benefits of them after significant time has passed. If a mid-game war trashed my cottages, I would probably replace them with farms or watermills. Due to this vulnerability, financial may be much less useful in multi-player.

And yes, I can keep the AI happy. Bribes of my excess resources almost always keep the AI off my back late in the game. And if all else fails, it's not like a financial player can't build an army. I keep high production city churning out military units like any other successful builder strategy. Just because I am financial doesn't mean I put cottages everywhere.

 

[Gufnork]

If you don't have enough commerce to make Financial better than Organized, your mighty army will run into a wall of superior troops. There's no way you can keep up in the tech race by just building farms and mines. Sure, Spearmen can beat tanks but I wouldn't bet on it.

And no, Financial doesn't get an overabundance of gold. They get extra commerce, which translates into beakers in my dictionary.

My scenario was pretty much optimal for Organized. Financial is best in the early game. I did acknowledge Sulla's reply. I said anyone who thought Organized was balanced was full of ****.

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

Well I'm assuming the poster 2 places above then agrees that it isn't unbalanced in multiplayer (right?). Isn't that where balance really matters?????

Better tech won't help as much as you think - who cares about tech if they have the biggest army? - and having one or two military cities won't suffice against a warmongering civ. What if those cities are lost? Remember though, I'm talking about a pillaging war, which is enough to wreck a financial player.

and to the person that says aggressive is weak they need to experiment a bit more.

 

[walkerjks]

Well I'm assuming the poster 2 places above then agrees that it isn't unbalanced in multiplayer (right?). Isn't that where balance really matters?????

On one level, yes, multiplayer is where balance really matters. However, it would be nice if I could effectively pick any arbitrary civ in single player and have an equal chance of winning at high difficulty levels. I'm not convinced that is possible, so rebalancing for single player is a worthy goal.

For what it's worth, I wasn't claiming that Financial is balanced for multi-player. I was conceding that it might be balanced, since pillage/raiding techniques will work far more effectively against financial than other traits.

In reality, for multiplayer, I'm not sure that a true discussion of balance is even appropriate yet. We need a few months of multi-player play in order to really see how things shake out. I suspect that people will gravitate to 2 or 3 traits in the end. I'm not sure we can predict which those will be.