Civ traits on emperor or above

hollebeek

Chieftain
Joined
Dec 17, 2005
Messages
74
Has anyone won on Emperor or above without having one of {Expansive,Organized,Financial} ?

Leaders that have two of the three are the only ones I've managed to
win with on Emperor (Washington, Victoria, Caesar).

Without Expansive, the health penalty of emperor really hurts, and without
organized or financial, your economy is crap ...

Due to the amount of fighting needed at Emperor, you'd think Aggressive
would work well, but I haven't had much luck even with the Incas ... maybe
I'll try Peter next ...
 
Goodness, I don't think I've even played a non-Financial Civ on Monarch or above :p

Incas are really the easiest to win with, unless you're alone on your continent, then GW is a good pick. With Incas you'll have no trouble against the Barbarians (unless you let them get Axemen) and generally wipe out the nearest Civ to you. Oh yes, and you'll get Hinduism too if you research it from the start. You can put it off and research one of the starting tech's first, but then you'll only get it about half the time instead of ~90%.
 
I think you are overestimating the importance of traits.
I make some effort to incorporate the traits into my strategy, but they don't completely determine what I do. My most recent win on Immortal was with Saladin, and 2 before that was Hatsheput. In the Saladin game I made a GP farm where I normally wouldn't have made one.
 
I've won on emperor with Mao, Saladin and Hatshhsepstpsput (playing immortal now). Here's what i think about those "other" traits:

Spiritual can be pretty good, especially if it comes with mysticism. Both the trait and the early religion allows you to manage diplomacy more efficiently. In the end thats more tech trading partners and wars between the AIs, both of which i find very helpful on higher diff levels.

Philosophical can also be nice. It gives you those first few great persons so much earlier, which can be game-breaking if you use them to get a big tech (philosophy, civil service, machinery, etc.), kind of like the oracle. That can help your tech trading a lot, and allow you to bribe a bunch of AIs into war. It can also allow you to have some kind of big advantage for a while. If for example you use a great prophet to get civil service and/or a great engineer to get machinery, you can have macemen a lot earlier and therefore kick some serious ass. Or get caste system and pop a quick great merchant to get you out of a maintenance hole after a great early rush that got you a lot of land/cities but a 10% science rate. Etc...

I also like creative for the ability to block off land, but you can't always do that so its a gamble. Typically on higher levels you wanna rush some neighbour early but can't keep all the cities because of the killer maintenance costs. Claiming lots of land is very important on emperor+, and not having to settle all over it early on or claiming it by force later is the most efficient way to do it imo. Creative also helps a lot with those crazy barbs, allowing you to use that much more units against some AI.

I dont find aggressive that much useful even for an all-out war game. The cheap barracks are nice, especially early on, but post-classical I dont care much about the difference in cost. Combat I is useful, but imo the promotions made available by combat II and III arent great enough for me not to pick another trait. With non-aggressive leader you're only 1 xp away from combat I + whatever, and thats only pre-theocracy... and who gives a /$%/%/ about cheap drydocks? :D

I won't even talk about industrious... thats for guys who like to play on settler, grab every single wonder, and marvel at their cute little empire till 3000AD. No seriously its not that bad, but for most strats its the worse imo on emperor+.
 
Check the following threads for consistent wins on emperor that do not depend on civ traits, among others:

One
Two
 
Back
Top Bottom