Commentary on Civ4 based on "rank the traits" thread

[futurehermit]

Here is a summary posting from the "rank the traits" thread:

Average of the first 30 voters:

1. Fin 2.48
2. Org 3.4
3. Phi 4.1
4. Cha 4.25
5. Spi 4.8
6. Cre 5.01
7. Exp 6.37
8. Ind 6.72
9. Imp 8.48
10 Agg 8.7
11 pro 10.15

I am starting a new thread instead of just adding this to the existing thread, because my commentary here is intended to take the discussion in another direction.

I would say the above average is a fairly accurate depiction of the relative strength of the traits in Civ4. Granted, the actual relative strength for any particular game will fluctuate somewhat based on the actual ingame circumstances of that particular game; however, I would say on the whole, in the long run, over the course of many games, this is a fairly good average with which to discuss the relative strength of the traits.

I see a couple of trends though that I would like to comment on:

1) The top traits tend to have to do with economic bonuses. Specifically, the ONLY thing financial does...the ONLY thing...is that it gives you an extra commerce on 2+ commerce tiles. This ONE thing makes this trait the STRONGEST trait. My interpretation here, and I'm sure I'm not the first one to make it, is that the main difficulty in Civ4 is being able to pay for horizontal and vertical expansion (ideally while being able to maintain a strong tech pace). Philosophical is similar in that it allows you to generate a lot of beakers via gpp while diverting funds to paying the bills. Compare this to point #2...

2) The bottom traits tend to have to do with warmongering (Agg/Pro/Imp). The AI sucks at war, plain and simple. Adding this together with point #1 I come to the conclusion that the difficulty in Civ4 is not being able to gain the necessary land to win (at least for average+ skilled players), but again being able to afford this land (and, presumably, still tech well).

3) The mid-tier traits (Spir/Crea/Exp/Ind), I would say, are nice support traits and reflect the strength that the top and bottom tier traits WOULD have if: a] the AI was better at offensive and defensive warfare; and b] the costs of expansion were decreased (!!!)

4) From point #3, one might object that if the costs of expansion were decreased, then, the game might become too easy. However, if both a] and b] above were addressed and the AI was better at claiming and defending its land, then it would not be as easy for the human to claim land, and therefore the decreased costs of expansion would not make the game too easy because then paying the costs of expansion would not become the main challenge of Civ4, but rather being able to CLAIM the land would become the main challenge.

5) Thus, I conclude by wondering what Civ4 would be like if the AI was significantly improved at warfare and the financial costs of expansion were decreased? Perhaps financial and organized would be less valued while perhaps agg/pro/imp would be more valued? At any rate, I think the game would be improved if the main challenge was being able to claim the land rather than being able to afford to pay for it.

Disclaimer: Granted, on the highest skill levels, claiming land may be considerably easier said than done...

Thoughts?

 

[oyzar]

I must say i strongly disagree with that ranking for the types of games i play, but that i already explained in the thread. The points about traits in civ is that they are all rather situational. There are always situations where you would want one trait over another... I am not sure where you got the idea that imp is a warmongering trait given that it's main bonus is settler spamming which is typically best when you have a large amount of room....

 

[futurehermit]

Yes, I am lumping Imp in with Agg/Pro based on its GG bonus. Sure, the settler bonus is the main thing Imp has going for it, but that still fits in with my theory: Imp helps you gain land--but, the main difficulty is NOT in CLAIMING the land, but rather PAYING for the land.

EDIT: Also, I acknowledge that the summary ranking and, thus, my comments will not apply to all game settings and specific game situations. However, I think it is general enough to be relevant to enough settings and situations that it is worth discussing.

 

[Gliese 581]

I must say i strongly disagree with that ranking for the types of games i play, but that i already explained in the thread. The points about traits in civ is that they are all rather situational. There are always situations where you would want one trait over another... I am not sure where you got the idea that imp is a warmongering trait given that it's main bonus is settler spamming which is typically best when you have a large amount of room....

I think the list somewhat reflects though the fact that economical traits are always useful while warmongering traits are not always useful. Beyond that the ranking of the "economical traits" (using the widest definition of economy here, including landgrabbing etc) will vary alot depending on map and difficulty. I tried to adjust for this a bit by cheating and presenting two lists.

 

[CreeDakota]

I agreed with your main point that maintaining an empire is the challenge in CIV IV, not acquiring it.

As for how to make a better game, I think Firaxis did a great job making how to balance expansion into a strategic choice. To remove that element and replace it with improved warfare mechanics would radicallly change the game. Right now the warfare has minimal tactics involved; we would need things like supply lines, morale, formations, etc. Fun but different game.

 

[UWHabs]

If maintenance costs were 0 (and thus, the only costs associated with having more and larger cities was civic cost), I wouldn't be surprised to see a different ordering altogether.

But yes, the main limiting factor early game especially (and with snowball effect, that dictates how the rest of the game goes) invariably is money. Except for when you're isolated (or nearly isolated that a very quick early rush can take care of), that is the limiting factor. So, the traits that directly help that aspect end up winning out.

In summary, money is power.

 

[oyzar]

I find that this isn't true a lot of the time, often you can get through just by working more tiles faster...

 

[futurehermit]

I find that this isn't true a lot of the time, often you can get through just by working more tiles faster...

I think I know what you mean, but could you clarify?

 

[feralminded]

Well the irony here is CHA comes in at #4 (right behind the golden 3) and one could easily argue the majority of it's benefit over the course of the game is the warmongering benefit. Its an interesting outlier here. The happiness benefit, while not trite, is not overwhelming beyond the first 150 turns of the game and even there probably isn't as powerful as FIN or ORG's cheap courthouses or PHI's tech rate + cheap Universities. In fact it compares unfavorably to EXP unless you make use of the warmongering effect of it.

Ultimately people clearly LIKE warmongering traits just the other three apparently don't offer enough in addition to the benefit to make people's lists. I mean one could argue PRO-wall spamming is almost an economic benefit in itself but that's about it. I think my own reason to dislike IMP is because the benefit isn't quite good enough (I'm lucky if I build 10 settlers a game). If IMP had some building reductions like EXP I think it would vote better.

I think the most interesting position there is CHA. I mean I rate CHA very high myself but its interesting how it compares.

I also think SPI and IND get unfair hate and CRE gets unfair love (although apparently its killer on deity ... guess I'll see soon enough). IND reminds people of their wonderspamming days at noble, SPI just looks like it takes too much effort (it really doesn't), and CRE IS super easy.

 

[futurehermit]

I was thinking about char for the exact reasons you mention. I think the +2 early on shouldn't be underestimated in terms of an economic benefit. Granted, the warmongering benefit IS strong, no question, but I think char is seen as strong because it has BOTH an economic benefit (e.g., 2 extra early cottages in the capital) and a military benefit. If aggressive had a comparable economic benefit, instead of just cheap barracks/drydocks (who builds very many drydocks? barracks isn't that expensive to begin with and only necessary in production cities...) I think agg would be rated much higher than it is.

 

[ABigCivFan]

Imp helps you gain land--but, the main difficulty is NOT in CLAIMING the land, but rather PAYING for the land.

This is only valid if you have a lot of uncontested land to settle at your leisure.

When land is limited, AIs are fast, getting your first few settlers a few turns faster will often determine the outcome of the whole game.

The first 3 settlers are typically used to:

1. claim multiple resource "Sweet spot" cities
2. Block

And regarless of difficulty, we can almost always afford the first 3 settlers (4 cities). When you block well, you can always settler a few other cities later after COL or with maturing cottages in early cities.

So on certain levels, the speed of getting the first few settlers is Extremely important for you to achieve long-term goals. I have many occusions lost a great city spot by a few turns to get myself into serious trouble.

Imp's GG bonus should not be dismissed, having multiple MAs up in your best prod cities so many turns faster can really help you seal a game in the renansonce/Industiral era.

 

[Bandobras Took]

I think we already had a game that rewarded mindless expansion in Civ 3.

 

[EmperorFool]

In summary, money is power.

True, by the transitive property and FH's lemma:

Money is land, and land is power.​

 

[r_rolo1]

About that discussion, I'll only had one thing to say that someone once said me: majority does not make reason.

Traits ranking is hugely dependent of the map and the diplo enviroment. Not taking that in account is making the whole discussion a academiciam discussion of how many angels can dance in top of a pin

 

[assass1n]

That makes GK/Charles/Toku the worst I dont consider them the worst though Toku isn't that great

 

[PieceOfMind]

I was thinking about char for the exact reasons you mention. I think the +2 early on shouldn't be underestimated in terms of an economic benefit. Granted, the warmongering benefit IS strong, no question, but I think char is seen as strong because it has BOTH an economic benefit (e.g., 2 extra early cottages in the capital) and a military benefit. If aggressive had a comparable economic benefit, instead of just cheap barracks/drydocks (who builds very many drydocks? barracks isn't that expensive to begin with and only necessary in production cities...) I think agg would be rated much higher than it is.

Just for the record, when you go for an espionage economy, you will typically try for Nationhood (at Nationalism). With this civic, barracks are +2 on the cheap. I find myself sometimes building them before monuments and temples etc. when I'm trying to increase the happy cap. I'm not saying AGG makes this much better because IMO barracks are dirt cheap anyway - I just wanted to say barracks can be useful in an entirely non-militaristic way as well.

 

[Zeiter]

FYI, here's an ordering of leaders based on the scores above. Now, this doesn't take into account the strengths and weaknesses of UU's and UB's. This also doesn't take into account opinions about trait synergy. These following scores are just each leader's two traits averaged together:

1 Darius 2.94
2 Lizzy 3.29
3 Hannibal 3.37
4 Mansa Musa 3.64
5 Willem 3.75
5 Freddy 3.75
7 Napoleon 3.83
8 Asoka 4.1
9 Lincoln 4.18
10 Zara 4.21
11 Pacal 4.43
12 Ghandi 4.45
13 Brennus 4.53
14 Pericles 4.56
15 Huayna Capac 4.6
16 Mehmed 4.89
17 Hatty 4.91
18 FDR 5.06
19 Peter 5.24
20 Washington 5.31
21 Vicky 5.48
22 De Gaulle 5.49
23 Izzy 5.59
23 Ragnar 5.59
25 Sury 5.69
26 Ramesses 5.76
27 Louis XIV 5.87
28 Julius 5.94
29 Hammy 6.05
30 Suleiman 6.29
31 Wang Kon 6.32
32 Cyrus 6.37
33 Alex 6.4
34 Boudica 6.48
35 Bismarck 6.55
36 Justinian 6.64
37 Monty 6.75
37 Cathy 6.75
39 Kublai Khan 6.86
40 Sitting Bull 7.13
41 Churchill 7.2
42 Joao 7.43
43 Saladin 7.48
44 Shaka 7.54
45 Gilgamesh 7.58
46 Augustus 7.6
47 Stalin 7.71
48 Mao 8.26
49 QSH 8.44
50 Ghenghis Khan 8.59
51 Charlemagne 9.32
52 Tokugawa 9.43

Scores averaged and sorted by civ:

1 Carthage 3.37
2 Mali 3.64
3 Dutch 3.75
4 Ethiopia 4.21
5 India 4.28
6 Mayans 4.43
7 Incans 4.6
8 Persia 4.65
9 USA 4.85
10 France 5.06
11 Germany 5.15
12 English 5.32
13 Egypt 5.33
14 Greece 5.48
15 Celts 5.5
16 Ottomans 5.59
16 Spanish 5.59
16 Vikings 5.59
19 Khmer 5.69
20 Babylon 6.05
21 Korea 6.32
22 Russia 6.56
23 Byzantines 6.64
24 Aztecs 6.75
25 Romans 6.77
26 Native America 7.13
27 Portugal 7.43
28 Arabia 7.48
29 Zulu 7.54
30 Sumeria 7.58
31 Mongols 7.72
32 China 8.35
33 HRE 9.32
34 Japan 9.43

Now what I wonder is, do the UU's and UB's for each civ usually balance out the average trait rating? Meaning, do the civs with traits that are generally recognized as being powerful have weak UU's and UB's to compensate and vice-versa? Such as...Carthage, Mali, Dutch, and Persians. They are pretty high up there, and they've got some great UU's and UB's as well. Unbalanced? Too powerful?

On the other hand, there might be pretty decent balance with the chinese, who have a pretty good UU, so that helps compensate for their trait score. HRE has a really good UB to compensate for their low score. Portugal and Rome both have really good UU's to compensate for their traits.

This list also suggests that, playing with unrestricted leaders, Darius of anything would be the most generally powerful combo.

 

[BARBEERIAN]

First things first, you can't really use voting to base the strength of traits (only the perceived strength). The biggest civ noob ever and the biggest civ ubergodlike player both get one vote, but that of course doesn't mean they should be valued equally since the super veteran knows much more about the ins and outs of the game.

As to reducing financial cost, IMHO that just devolves the game into ICS like CivIII was, it's just expand, expand, expand with no consideration of the effects on your economy. The addition of a heavy financial burden for expansion in CivIV is both realistic, and better for gameplay as well. It means you have to plan your expansion, it makes warmongering less of the primary strategy (though it's still the dominant one since as you point out the AI is horrible at war) since a compact empire with high research can do quite well (up to a point, where you do need to start expanding more).

I find that this isn't true a lot of the time, often you can get through just by working more tiles faster...

This is why expansive is a trait I consider top-tier. Worker spam = improved tile spam = more food/hammers/commerce.

Imp is a great trait too despite the fact that it got absolutely raped in the voting. Running those early c*ck blocks against other civs is extremely valuable (more so as difficulty increases), the extra GG's are just icing on the cake!

 

[feralminded]

Um Carthage has one of the best UUs and UBs. Same with the Mali. Same with Darius. Lizzy's UU/UB aren't super special but they experience nice synergy with the way you typically play a PHI leader (peaceful early until you get the tech advantage). Clearly there is not a lot of balancing there ... of course you also should consider starting techs in the balancing equation. I rate any leader with Agriculture or Mining higher than leaders without either.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Indeed the rankings are flawed, as they're created by each player assuming the difficulty he plays with to be standard, intentionally or otherwise. What makes a good deity trait is a far cry from what makes a good noble trait. At immortal, I don't even know what trait would most help a struggling noble player, and it's only been a year since I was that level. I didn't even understand the TRUE implications of each trait at the time! What would my vote have been then? Certainly not like it is now...

So we have different skill levels voting on what, thanks to speed, game setting, and difficulty variance are essentially different games, and we compile them into what?

I won't say it, but I think you catch my drift . I trust polls like this as far as I can throw them, and since I don't have mutant superpowers, I can't throw electronic data....