Charismatic Vs. Aggressive

[WeaselSlapper]

Hello all I just wanted to get some other opinions on which trait everyone else thought was a better Charismatic or Aggressive. Personally I think that Charismatic wins this hands down due to the benefit not being limited to only melee and gunpowder units. I find that when I play as an aggressive leader I neglect other types of units and weaken my stacks. For me the +2 happiness you get from being Charismatic with a monument vastly outweighs the faster build speed of barracks and dry dock because those usually build fast for me anyway.

 

[shyuhe]

If you're axe rushing, aggressive is better.

 

[Bostock]

And if you'll be drafting a lot.

I still chose charismatic - with 2 extra happy cap, I can build more units and support more, which trumps a little extra unit quality.

 

[Shurdus]

Overall I think charismatic makes for a more diverse trait. In a typical war I either have so much siege that the + 10% strength on my units may as well be a -10% because the battered defenses would not survive anything any more, and because in a typical war I have a tech advantage anyway so my units already batter the AI with a decent success rate. Aggressive would be pretty much the lowest trait on my charts.

 

[madscientist]

Both are really situational and depends when you go to war.

Early rushes favor Agressive due to the brute force extra promotion and fast barracks.

Seige/HA/Knight era favors charismatic leaders due to higher promotions on mounted units due to BArracks+stable.

Draft favors aggressive unless you have a substantial number of settled GGs in the Globe theater city.

Intercontinental Invasion favors Charismatic bigtime because of 2 free promotions for each drydock and airport.

I prefer Charismatic for the later game advantages.

 

[UWHabs]

Ignoring the happiness aspect of charismatic, I'd say they'd come out roughly even.

But having +2 happy early is too huge.

 

[Bostock]

Difficulty level (and how good you are at your preferred level) also matters. If you're playing above, and maybe at, your level, an early rush becomes complicated, so aggressive loses some of its punch.

 

[JTMacc99]

Hee! Those poll results are unsurprising. Charismatic is generally better for Human players. One of my favorite things to do with the trait is building Stonehenge. It gives me the automatic happy AND the mini-creative border pop in all of my cities early on and probably through one or three wars.

It also let's you build a couple drydocks and build peacetime level 3 navies without having to go into an XP boosting civic. It also plays really well with a lot of other traits and UUs. It's great on Napoleon, because he let's you expand rapidly with the Org trait right around the time you get his UU. The two move Musketeer is a pretty good unit, but once you get them up to level three (and a short shot to level 4) they can really be outstanding.

 

[Artichoker]

Aggressive is good in a few specific situations:

1) You want to use Warriors instead of Archers to defend your cities

2) You have Copper and want to capture a few nearby cities (especially if they are Barbarian)

3) You want to have a little bit more power in Renaissance wars


In cases 1) and 2), both the Barracks discount and free Combat I are significant. In case 3), when Riflemen have a big window for being useful, Aggressive resurfaces in usefulness.

Once I get to late Industrial and onward, however, military composition will tend to move away from Gunpowder units, making the free Combat I bonus more irrelevant. At this point, I would rather have an economic tech that can either speed up my tech rate or provide extra production with rush buying.


With Charismatic, the XP discount doesn't become significant until I'm trying to gain a 4th level unit for Heroic Epic, or until I begin my first major war. But the types of units that gain the bonus is not restricted. Siege units, for example, still gain the bonus. In the early game, however, the happiness bonus is usually better than 1) and 2) above for Aggressive...although the effect is not seen as early.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

AGG is an early rush and draft pony.

CHA owns it hands down for everything else, including base economy. CHA is far better as a trait.

 

[Fleme]

Agg for rushing, cha for better benefits and later wars.

Overall, cha.

 

[capnvonbaron]

this one isn't one-sided or anything

CHA is

 

[IAM]

Charismatic for me. I'm surprised the poll is so one sided (30 to 0). Makes me want to change my vote.

 

[§L¥ Gµ¥]

charismatic easily. More diverse units, all across the board. And extra happiness to boot.

Barracks are cheap enough anyway, and I'd rather promote down the drill line to the combat one when possible.

 

[NihilZero]

A somewhat redundant poll methinks.

Aggressive is still good, though.

 

[euripides]

AGG for Zulu
CHA for evryone else

but I´m axe-rushing seldomly...

 

[Absolute Zero]

CHA because it helps not only in war but also with the extra happiness.

The less xp needed for promos can turn out to be more helpful than a free Combat I, actually, although I agree that AGG is better for rushing. I'm not sure how much better, though...

 

[mariogreymist]

Like everyone is saying...If axe rushing, agg wins. In all other cases, I'll take CHA. The only time AGG has any economic benefit is when playing the zulu (discounted UB)...other than that, it's a one-trick pony.

 

[BigTime]

Charismatic. I'm not much of a rusher myself, nor an insane drafter. +2 Happy early (including monument) is also a plus. Hands down CHA.

59-0 for CHA, nobody loves AGG?

 

[mariogreymist]

I think we all love AGG...

When we are axe-rushing.