Does Great wall & Imperialistic trait give you 200% GG inside cultural borders?

[Feanor777]

Does Great wall & Imperialistic trait give you 200% Great General inside cultural borders?

 

[Blaarg]

Yes, I'm pretty sure it does. (I should hope so, Imperialistic sucks eitehr way.)

 

[sydhe]

I think so too. It's especially fun with Genghis Khan.

 

[D Wolf]

Why does imperalistic suck? As I see it, it gives you twice the amount of Great Generals everyone else has (and earlier, to boot)... the quick settler production also saves quite a lot of turns in the early game that could be devoted to building barracks or a market.

 

[King of Town]

Imperialistic/organized sounds like a pretty good combo ( not sure who, if anyone has it), even imperialistic charasmatic. It depends on whether you are a war monger or not.

 

[Honkoid]

Imperialistic/organized sounds like a pretty good combo ( not sure who, if anyone has it), even imperialistic charasmatic. It depends on whether you are a war monger or not.

Imperialistic, charismatic + Immortals (Cyrus) just rock! Had one of my easiest domination wins with Cyrus.

 

[HilloPäällikkö]

Julius has Imp/Org

 

[azzaman333]

Does Great wall & Imperialistic trait give you 200% Great General inside cultural borders?

I've remember hearing, but can't confirm, that GW + Imp gives 4x the GG points than neither.

 

[AlessioCerci]

^^^ Yes that is correct. For some reason these particular multipliers are multiplied not added, so its 4x the original.

 

[Blaarg]

Why does imperalistic suck? As I see it, it gives you twice the amount of Great Generals everyone else has (and earlier, to boot)... the quick settler production also saves quite a lot of turns in the early game that could be devoted to building barracks or a market.

If I'm not mistaken, Imperialistic is widely considered one of the lower tier traits.

 

[Ethric]

Just because something is "widely considered" best/worst, that doesn't make it so. It's certainly not an argument for why it is worst, if it is, that it is considered as such.

Though I don't think you get twice as many generals as you would without it, but the exact mathematics of it eludes me.

 

[Ghandi33]

Why does imperalistic suck? As I see it, it gives you twice the amount of Great Generals everyone else has (and earlier, to boot)... the quick settler production also saves quite a lot of turns in the early game that could be devoted to building barracks or a market.

The quick settler production isn't as quick as you would think. It only multiplies the hammer portion, not the food. Generally, early in the game, you're cranking settler's from one of your food heavy cities to take advantage of floodplains or other good resources, so the benefit is almost negligable.

 

[azzaman333]

The quick settler production isn't as quick as you would think. It only multiplies the hammer portion, not the food. Generally, early in the game, you're cranking settler's from one of your food heavy cities to take advantage of floodplains or other good resources, so the benefit is almost negligable.

Chopping and whipping is how you get the most out of IMP.

 

[Diamondeye]

The quick settler production isn't as quick as you would think. It only multiplies the hammer portion, not the food. Generally, early in the game, you're cranking settler's from one of your food heavy cities to take advantage of floodplains or other good resources, so the benefit is almost negligable.

That is very wrong. Try playing a Terra or Pangaea map with Joao and do the settlerspam. Stop when you're at 40% or so to recover a bit... I mean, with Joao, and Mathematics, workers are one chop and settlers are two... Normally that'd be 2 and 4...

I agree it's not a good trait lategame though. Neither is Industrious, which is a med-top tier trait... I consider Imp a mediocre trait... It's a bit of a niche trait really.

 

[Hawe Hawe]

The combo of Great Wall and imperialistic with 200% Great Generals seems strong. You should declare war and fight it within your borders, let the enmy come and destroy him on the doorstep of your cities. You really do get many Generals with this. The problem is it doesn't bring you anywhere: You don't make gains in terms of conquering, plundering or eliminating enemies. Further you get more war weariness from wars on your territory.
I tried it once with Charlemagne. I thought protective might help even more, but in general this type of defensive war is to passive. Its neither a buildup strategy nor a conquest-war-strategy.

 

[Supr49er]

Imperialistic/organized sounds like a pretty good combo ( not sure who, if anyone has it), even imperialistic charasmatic. It depends on whether you are a war monger or not.

IMP: Augustus Caesar (IN); Julius Caesar (OR); Victoria (FI); Cyrus (CH), Justinian (SP); Charlemange (PR); Sulieman (PH); Catherine (CR); Joao (EX); Genghis Khan (AG)

 

[Welnic]

Each great general that you get costs the same amount extra that the first one costs. So lets set the cost of the first great general to 1. Whatever speed that you play at this actual value will differ. It's 30 for normal and 45 for epic. The second general cost 60 in normal and 90 in epic. In both cases the way this is set up below the first general costs 1, the second 2, the third 3, and so on.

GG points per GG:
01 03 06 10 15 21 28 36 45 55 66 78 91 105 120
01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 014 015


GG points_______GGs
normal/imp______normal/imp

.5/1____________0/1
1/2_____________1/1
1.5/3___________1/2
3/6_____________2/3
5/10____________2/4 double!
6/12____________3/4
7.5/15__________3/5
10/20___________4/5
10.5/21_________4/6
14/28___________4/7
15/30___________5/7
18/36___________5/8
21/42___________6/8
22.5/45_________6/9
27.5/55_________6/10
28/56___________7/10
33/66___________7/11
36/72___________8/11
39/78___________8/12
45/90___________9/12
45.5/91_________9/13
52.5/105________9/14
55/110__________10/14
60/120__________10/15
66/132__________11/15

 

[Jperkinson]

^^^ Yes that is correct. For some reason these particular multipliers are multiplied not added, so its 4x the original.

Is this true!?!? That seems like a bug to me..

Also- Perhaps i don't have enough coffee, but I can't figure out the above post... Can you clarify? (re: Welnic)

 

[Welnic]

It's a comparison of how many GGs you get for your GG points between normal and imperialism. If you just look at the right column, you can see that when an imperial civ gets its 5th GG, a normal one just has 3. Then a normal one gets its 4th, but then the imperial civ gets its 7th before the normal civ get another.

Basically if you are playing with imperialism and you just picked up your 8th GG, you can look and see that if you didn't have imperialism you would only have 5.

 

[seizer]

The combo of Great Wall and imperialistic with 200% Great Generals seems strong. You should declare war and fight it within your borders, let the enmy come and destroy him on the doorstep of your cities. You really do get many Generals with this. The problem is it doesn't bring you anywhere: You don't make gains in terms of conquering, plundering or eliminating enemies. Further you get more war weariness from wars on your territory.
I tried it once with Charlemagne. I thought protective might help even more, but in general this type of defensive war is to passive. Its neither a buildup strategy nor a conquest-war-strategy.

Actually you don't get any war weariness when fighting on plots where you have the majority of the culture, so the strategy is viable, even more so if you have the Statue of Zeus.