Discussion on leader trait selection

[Conroe]

Triad Coalition Platform

Aggressive/Philosophical


Tribal Council Platform

Financial/Industrious

To be honest, neither of these would be on my list of first choices.

Both financial and philosophical can provide a corner stone for an economic strategy. To say which one is better IMHO will be a bit map dependent. This game is currently defined to be a Fractal map. Fractal provides some very interesting maps to play with, but they do tend to be a bit random. You can get anything from a pangaea type map to a series of small continents or islands. There is a good probability of water on these maps, thus I'd say that financial could have an advantage.

I don't really care for the aggressive trait. Although, it can be useful in some games. But as a general rule, it is one of my least favorite traits.

I don't really care for industrious, either. It can be useful for OCC and culture games, but otherwise I rarely focus on building wonders. Those cheap forges can be nice if you happen to start near gems, gold, or silver. But that is luck of the draw ...

The key trait for this game IMHO would be imperialistic. There are normally 7 civs on a standard map, but 9 have been selected for this game. The imperialistic's production boost to Settlers could be real handy on this map. Especially if you have several hills and/or lots of forests. Of course if you're stuck on a small island with an imperialistic neighbor, then that aggressive trait starts looking a bit better.

Other traits that I like would be creative for cheap Libraries, charismatic for the free happy faces, and of course organized is just an all-around good trait. Its also possible that the protective trait could come in handy, given the overcrowded nature of the map. Although I'm not sure, as I've never tried that combo.

I also think the true synergies of the traits won't really be known until the civilization is picked. But unless I'm mistaken, I think you folks have decided to set that one to random ...

 

[Provolution]

Civ is indeed random, otherwise this would have been to speculative and fixed. And for in-game immersion, no one can really forecast their future special military and buildings.

 

[Rashiminos]

The key trait for this game IMHO would be imperialistic. There are normally 7 civs on a standard map, but 9 have been selected for this game. The imperialistic's production boost to Settlers could be real handy on this map. Especially if you have several hills and/or lots of forests. Of course if you're stuck on a small island with an imperialistic neighbor, then that aggressive trait starts looking a bit better.

If you want imperialistic as the leader's trait, you're going to have persuade a faction to adopt it, or start your own faction, and do it pretty soon.

Civ is indeed random, otherwise this would have been to speculative and fixed. And for in-game immersion, no one can really forecast their future special military and buildings.

If you cover each and every civ, then a random choice of civ will always be one that you have covered. You said the Coalition has researched Alexander's synergies with all civs, so...

 

[Provolution]

Civ is random, so it is a gamble what we get. But for planning purposes it helps to map out various synergies and lack thereof.

 

[Conroe]

If you want imperialistic as the leader's trait, you're going to have persuade a faction to adopt it, or start your own faction, and do it pretty soon.

My apologies! Evidently I misunderstood the point of this thread. I thought it was a discussion of the traits and I was simply offering up my opinion for anyone bored enough to read it. As I've no intention of proposing anything, I'll just stick with my original thought: both choices are 2nd-tier.

 

[Oni of Chaos]

To be honest, neither of these would be on my list of first choices.

I don't really care for the aggressive trait. Although, it can be useful in some games. But as a general rule, it is one of my least favorite traits.

I don't really care for industrious, either. It can be useful for OCC and culture games, but otherwise I rarely focus on building wonders. Those cheap forges can be nice if you happen to start near gems, gold, or silver. But that is luck of the draw ...

The key trait for this game IMHO would be imperialistic. There are normally 7 civs on a standard map, but 9 have been selected for this game. The imperialistic's production boost to Settlers could be real handy on this map. Especially if you have several hills and/or lots of forests. Of course if you're stuck on a small island with an imperialistic neighbor, then that aggressive trait starts looking a bit better.

Other traits that I like would be creative for cheap Libraries, charismatic for the free happy faces, and of course organized is just an all-around good trait. Its also possible that the protective trait could come in handy, given the overcrowded nature of the map. Although I'm not sure, as I've never tried that combo.

1) For conquest/domination/securing an early lead by military, Aggressive rocks! Half prices barracks saves time which can be critical if you are trying to do an early Axe rush (which we probably should do with 9 civs on the map ) Not only that, that Combat I allows us access to the anti-unit and Medic promotions, which also speed up conquest.

2) Just about any strategy can be helped by wonders, so Industrious is pretty good too. Say you're going for the above example. Great Wall for more generals, Statue of Zeus to cripple the enemy economy, Faster Heroic Epic/West point, and so on. At Monarch you have to focus to get wonders, and Industrious gives more breathing room. Then you get to faster forges.

 

[Provolution]

Well Conroe, this time around it is not merely gameplay as in gametechnical play here. We try to establish some identity/immersion in the game, with factions, narratives and so on. We did not pick our leaderheads to appease some game-technical debate alone, but to present a real alternative for our very first election (traits in place of civics).

If you look around in the threads, you may even find a faction that appeals to you, to name them alphabetically there is Atlantis, Philosophers Legion, Tribal Council and Warlords Faction that are the four main factions in place. But you are of course free to start your own

 

[Oni of Chaos]

Well Conroe, this time around it is not merely gameplay as in gametechnical play here. We try to establish some identity/immersion in the game, with factions, narratives and so on. We did not pick our leaderheads to appease some game-technical debate alone, but to present a real alternative for our very first election (traits in place of civics).

If you look around in the threads, you may even find a faction that appeals to you, to name them alphabetically there is Atlantis, Philosophers Legion, Tribal Council and Warlords Faction that are the four main factions in place. But you are of course free to start your own

With an Imperialistic leader

 

[Provolution]

With an Imperialistic leader

He may even call it the "Faction of the Lone Star Emperor".

 

[DaveShack]

Moderator Action: Split thread to its own topic to keep the leaderhead role play pure.

 

[Oni of Chaos]

My apologies! Evidently I misunderstood the point of this thread. I thought it was a discussion of the traits and I was simply offering up my opinion for anyone bored enough to read it. As I've no intention of proposing anything, I'll just stick with my original thought: both choices are 2nd-tier.

Whoops I didn't read that

Hmmm. I don't agree.

 

[Conroe]

Seems this thread (or new thread) is deteriorating into a bit of a spam-fest. Not sure why you didn't just delete it, DS.

1) For conquest/domination/securing an early lead by military, Aggressive rocks! Half prices barracks saves time which can be critical if you are trying to do an early Axe rush (which we probably should do with 9 civs on the map ) Not only that, that Combat I allows us access to the anti-unit and Medic promotions, which also speed up conquest.

As I stated earlier, aggressive just isn't one of my favorite traits. Never said it was bad, just not one of my favorites. And indeed you are correct that those cover promotions will come in handy for an early axe rush. But in most games, I just don't see a long-term benefit from aggressive, especially compared to other traits like charismatic. As for the half price Barracks, they are already cheap. And its not like you build them in every city (although Zulu would). I just think there are better choices. YMMV

2) Just about any strategy can be helped by wonders, so Industrious is pretty good too. Say you're going for the above example. Great Wall for more generals, Statue of Zeus to cripple the enemy economy, Faster Heroic Epic/West point, and so on. At Monarch you have to focus to get wonders, and Industrious gives more breathing room. Then you get to faster forges.

I guess I got over my wonder addiction in Civ3. I don't really care for the Great Wall above noble. I'd rather fight in their land than mine. The Statue of Zeus is better captured than built. The Heroic Epic is usually built in a high hammer city anyway, so the industrious bonus isn't that critical. And I can't remember the last time I built West Point. Honestly, your list of wonders is not a reason to be industrious. The wonders I would be interested in building (Oracle, Pyramids, Great Library), I find are much easier to acquire in BTS. The revamped AI does not seem to emphasize wonders in the early game as it did in prior versions. I remember playing in an emperor level SG where we built the Pyramids in the AD's! Came as quite a shock to the team ...

The cheap forges are nice, no doubt about it. They especially rock when you've got one of the forge happiness resources in your start. But once again, I think there are better choices than industrious.

Well Conroe, this time around it is not merely gameplay as in gametechnical play here. We try to establish some identity/immersion in the game, with factions, narratives and so on. We did not pick our leaderheads to appease some game-technical debate alone, but to present a real alternative for our very first election (traits in place of civics).

If you look around in the threads, you may even find a faction that appeals to you,

I quite assure you, Provolution, that I have indeed read the aforementioned threads. And you may find in those threads everything that I care to contribute to those discussions. I have certainly not raised any objections nor put up any road blocks to your in-game immersion experience or your established identity. As the rules do not prohibit discussion of Civilization, I would ask that you show the same courtesy. Especially in a thread you created to debate the traits -- a very much gameplay oriented topic.

 

[Oni of Chaos]

The wonders I mentioned were just military wise. You have a point with the Great Wall though . Why don't you build WP though . +4XP and +100% Build Speed for Military Units in a nice production city is veeery nice.

It's all about priorities

 

[Provolution]

I can only say that the leaderhead that won the vote in the Warlord Faction was Hannibal Barca, where I personally advocated Churchill. However, I am fine with Alexander.

 

[Conroe]

Why don't you build WP though . +4XP and +100% Build Speed for Military Units in a nice production city is veeery nice.

It's all about priorities

As you say, it is all about priorities!

First off, West Point just gives +4xp in that one city. And there is no unit production boost associated with it. The main reason, though, is the cost. 800 hammers is pretty expensive, especially since it comes later in the game when I already have an established military and usually a couple of merged MI's. Basically, it just has a poor cost/benefit ratio. And its not that I never build it, its just that there are usually better ways to spend 800 hammers at that point in the game.

 

[Seidrik_The_Gray]

My personal favorite is Financial. From the extra commerce, I can build a larger army than any non-financial civ all things being equal. I can also research faster than any other non-financial civ, all things being equal. Money FTW!

The second trait is always up in the air...I love Imperialistic, but I think it's much better when paired with the Organized trait. I love Charismatic, too, but long-term, it's probably better in the early game or with a military centric strategy, so it's much better when paired with Aggressive or Spiritual.

There are maybe 4 wonders that I truly love: The Great Lighthouse, The Colossus, The Pyramids, and The Great Library. All others are nice to haves, and recently, I've even taken to ignoring The Pyramids, because it takes so long. But I love love love faster forges, and I also like to experiment with Wonder Denial as a strategy to keep the AI weeker than me and more backward technologically speaking.

My problem with Phylosophical leaders is that the extra GP boost is only a factor early on, and over the length of a game, you get the same +/- 1 GP as a non-phylosophical civ. If you really want a jump on military techs, then you want Great Merchants and Engineers with a few scientists thrown in. Sometimes this takes some micromanaging to ensure, and the GP is random, unless (as hinted at) you can micromanage a 100% chance of any one GP occuring.

I like industrious to secure a couple key early wonders faster, and also grant me quicker forges...the most important things in Civ are production and money, period. Your ability to do everything else is based on these two things.

 

[dutchfire]

Overcrowded map screams for Expansive (cheap workers) + Imperialistic (cheap settlers) if we want to have more than 3 half-decent cities before the AI claims everything.