Gandhi is the MAN!

Spiritual is only a good trait if you switch civics one at a time. If you change 2 or 3 at a time, spiritual can be very weak.
 
There is no other trait that will let you switch to Nationalism and Suffrage then draft and buy a bunch of Riflemen right where you need it, right now. This is particularly important for times when Montezuma lands off your coast with a Cavalry force next to a poorly defended city.

It's not the ability to switch without anarchy that is good, it's the ability to switch the same turn and raise an army that wasn't there at the start of turn.
 
henrycccc said:
Spiritual is only a good trait if you switch civics one at a time. If you change 2 or 3 at a time, spiritual can be very weak.

Explain please? Why does changing more than one civic at a time matter if you don't suffer from anarchy anyway?
 
Efexeye said:
Explain please? Why does changing more than one civic at a time matter if you don't suffer from anarchy anyway?

What he means is, the 1-turn anarchy that non-spiritual civs suffer is lessened somewhat if they are changing multiple civics at the same time (you can change a bunch of civics and still only suffer 1 turn of anarchy).

But, the real power of Spiritual is in the instant transfer of civics to what you need, right now. Nationalism and rushing civics are the obvious ones when you need to get some units out fast.
 
Jimbo30 said:
What he means is, the 1-turn anarchy that non-spiritual civs suffer is lessened somewhat if they are changing multiple civics at the same time (you can change a bunch of civics and still only suffer 1 turn of anarchy).

But, the real power of Spiritual is in the instant transfer of civics to what you need, right now. Nationalism and rushing civics are the obvious ones when you need to get some units out fast.
That assumes that the most useful aspect of Spirituality is switching government civics, which I don't agree with. The starting techs virtually guarantee you an early religion, while the cheaper temples makes for great border expansion early in the game if you don't have the Creative trait. True, you get more out of it if you switch civics often, but it's not required to receive benefit from the trait.
 
I havent played India yet, however, had a similar experience in civ. I rarely used to play with 'Militaristic' civs. Though I love Agg civs in 4. I usually play as either Greece or Japan now. Germany was my default coice based off of Pih/Cre (Fredrick). However, I rarely want to play as Germany too much lately as Agg suits me better early game.
 
Underseer said:
That assumes that the most useful aspect of Spirituality is switching government civics, which I don't agree with. The starting techs virtually guarantee you an early religion, while the cheaper temples makes for great border expansion early in the game if you don't have the Creative trait. True, you get more out of it if you switch civics often, but it's not required to receive benefit from the trait.

Yep the practically guaranteed religion(s) is an obvious benefit of course. I was merely suggesting that the instant civic switching is far more potent than the casual observer might think. IMO, it's the single best aspect of the trait, but thats probably more down to play style. In no game I've ever played have I regretted being Spiritual, that's for sure.
 
Efexeye said:
Explain please? Why does changing more than one civic at a time matter if you don't suffer from anarchy anyway?

As jimbo said, changing more than 1 civic at one stilll results in the same 1 turn of anarchy. Changing 1 civic, then another, then another will result in 3 turns of anarchy total.
 
Vulpes said:
It amazes me how many people mis-spell Gandhi even though it's in the thread title. :rolleyes:
The phaonmneal pweor of the hmuan mnid, aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it dseno't mtaetr in waht oerdr the ltteres in a wrod are, the olny iproamtnt tihng is taht the frsit and lsat ltteer be in the rghit pclae.

The rset can be a taotl mses and you can sitll raed it whotuit a pboerlm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe.
 
joethreeblah said:
The phaonmneal pweor of the hmuan mnid, aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it dseno't mtaetr in waht oerdr the ltteres in a wrod are, the olny iproamtnt tihng is taht the frsit and lsat ltteer be in the rghit pclae.

The rset can be a taotl mses and you can sitll raed it whotuit a pboerlm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe.

LAMO. I lvoe tihs psot. Qotue of the yaer.

It's pobrbaly due to the pohincs we are tguhat gowrnig up in sohcol.
 
joethreeblah said:
The phaonmneal pweor of the hmuan mnid, aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it dseno't mtaetr in waht oerdr the ltteres in a wrod are, the olny iproamtnt tihng is taht the frsit and lsat ltteer be in the rghit pclae.

The rset can be a taotl mses and you can sitll raed it whotuit a pboerlm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe.
That's a funny one, if a bit old. Unfortunately, that theory breaks down as you start using longer and longer words. It works very well with one to three syllables, as long as you stick to commonly used words.
 
Underseer said:
That's a funny one, if a bit old. Unfortunately, that theory breaks down as you start using longer and longer words. It works very well with one to three syllables, as long as you stick to commonly used words.

I never knew about this study myself. This is more a vocabulary problem of people with limited vocabualaries reading the statement. The study was probably based off of the phonics being taught now. Hence you see a 'new' word and you go instantly back to a 1st grade reading level. I mean how do you 'read' -Chihuahua- and not get Chi-hooah-hooah over chi-wa-wa? Why isn't Pteradactle simply Teradactle? Why is the damn 'P' silent? a knife is a K-nife. This makes no sense, which is why we are taught phonics. We don't know how to read, we know how to memorize words. That's why 'hooked on phonics worked for me'
 
The phaonmneal pweor of the hmuan mnid, aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it dseno't mtaetr in waht oerdr the ltteres in a wrod are, the olny iproamtnt tihng is taht the frsit and lsat ltteer be in the rghit pclae.

The rset can be a taotl mses and you can sitll raed it whotuit a pboerlm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe.
Well. I have something to say to that:
"Anidroccg to crad cniyrrag lcitsiugnis planoissefors at an uemannd, utisreviny in Bsitirh Cibmuloa, and crartnoy to the duoibus cmials of the ueticnd rcraeseh, a slpmie, macinahcel ioisrevnn of ianretnl cretcarahs araepps sneiciffut to csufnoe the eadyrevy oekoolnr."
 
Hentooth said:
I am a sad type of player that plays just one nation (English, usually Elizabeth) but recently on a multiplayer I chose Gandhi and I wiped the floor with my opponents!

Since then I have chosen Gandhi and his traits really suit my style!

Has anyone else come across this?

I agree. His fast workers let your citys grow a little bit faster. I always get a cultural advantage against the other players when I'm gandhi.

Last game was on a normal size map. I was playing as gandhi. I had a bad starting location and did only got six cities. But, the cities devloped really fast and I managed to do some seriuos @$$ kicking, Game ended with a dimplomatic victory for Gandhi. That was on Noble.
 
spiritual trait isn't a waste. i like to switch govts and religions like a madman with spiritual leaders ;)
 
i have played on most leaders and i have found Ghandi really good. although i have just played with english (Elizabeth) and kicked arse with milatry although i normally suck at war. must be financial trait.
 
Back
Top Bottom