How in the world do you compete with a non-financial leader?

[DarkSchneider]

Financial seems like such an overpowering trait, I would be tempted to take it over two non-financial traits. Getting financial paired with something like Charismatic, with Hannibal, or the Quecha rush, with Huayna, seems like too much. Every gane I've played with a non-financial leader has ended disasterously on Prince difficulty and above. On Monarch and above I think you really need financial to offset the AIs research advantage.

 

[InvisibleStalke]

You definitely don't need it - but it is powerful. I always watch out for the financial AIs - they seem to pull away from the pack and you notice how much slower the overall research rate is when there are no financial AIs around.

But research is the strength of financial - of course it will do better at raw research. But other traits can compete.

Military traits like aggressive and charismatic allow you to conquer land more quickly with fewer losses. The extra land put to work can easily generate more research.

Specialist enhancing traits like Spiritual, Creative and Philosophical can lightbulb quickly through techs and research even faster than financial at stages in the game.

Industrious can score wonders that can multiply research enormously. Getting early representation from pyramids and running scientists generates a ton of research.

Organized can support the large empire you capture through warring extensively.

I find expansive, protective, imperialistic and creative probably the weakest traits. But they are still useful and often enhance another strong trait for a good combination.

I do agree that financial is probably the most powerful trait (although Philosophical and Spiritual come very close IMO). You definitely don't need financial to compete on Monarch or Emperor. My earliest space win on Monarch is with an Industrious-Protective leader. My highest scoring game is with Aggressive-Creative. And my highest Emperor win was Spiritual-Aggressive.

 

[Preacherman]

I find that a healthy combination of axemen and catapults evens the playing field quite well.

To turn that into more than just a one-liner, let me say this; a financial civ can only leverage its trait if you let it. Beat them down. Pillage their cottages. Bribe other civs to attack them, to prevent their expansion.
It's true that financial civs are a pain in the ass if you allow them to get territory and tech like bastards. The answer is: don't let them.

 

[Hero]

DaveMcW where are you?

 

[UncleJJ]

DaveMcW where are you?

You want him to come to this thread and spam cottages?

 

[obsolete]

Financial seems like such an overpowering trait, I would be tempted to take it over two non-financial traits.

Dear god, I wish that were possible so we could play heads-up this way. I'll promise not to chose a financial leader if you honestly think that will give you an advantage.

 

[Sjaramei]

Financial makes a huge difference early on, later though when you got cottages for 6-8 commerce anyway it's not as big difference anymore. (20 commerce max pr city i think, organized should save you at least half of that bonus later when you use expensive civics)

When organized save you 50% on civic upkeep (which gets better the more people/costly civics you have) and have cheaper courthouses it's not that much worse. I feel organized is a bit underestimated by most people

In the end all that matters is land, lots of land. So to compete with AI you just need to get the biggest empire Since the AI sucks at war it shouldn't be that hard of a feat to accomplish.

Financial is a crutch you just have to learn to live without. I had big trouble in the start playing non-financial leaders, but i learned
- Start forcing cities to only commerce/growth from the start (specialize) and make a Great Scientist farm and you'll notice that your research can keep up with financial civs.

You just have to learn to leverage your traits better and it will work out. Start doing some Organized leaders instead of Financial ones, then move on to the rest later

I find that a healthy combination of axemen and catapults evens the playing field quite well.

To turn that into more than just a one-liner, let me say this; a financial civ can only leverage its trait if you let it. Beat them down. Pillage their cottages. Bribe other civs to attack them, to prevent their expansion.
It's true that financial civs are a pain in the ass if you allow them to get territory and tech like bastards. The answer is: don't let them.

And listen to the preacher. His words are the truth

(Mansa Musa can't be allowed to tech whore in peace!)

 

[Mutineer]

Financial trat actially pretty week.
I post it many times, but new people coming and thinks repeat itself.

Commerce is secondary in civ, first thik yuo need production, production, production.

Early on your best source of beakers is Ligtbulbing and trade.
Financial is a bad trat early on, as only few of ties you work benefit from trat.

On other hand financial shine on warter maps and in a middle in game, when it let you to pick up cottagess a bit faster.

 

[InvisibleStalke]

Financial trat actially pretty week.
I post it many times, but new people coming and thinks repeat itself.

Commerce is secondary in civ, first thik yuo need production, production, production.

Early on your best source of beakers is Ligtbulbing and trade.
Financial is a bad trat early on, as only few of ties you work benefit from trat.

On other hand financial shine on warter maps and in a middle in game, when it let you to pick up cottagess a bit faster.

Don't make the mistake of thinking financial is weak at the start. Its incredibly strong then and only gets less important later on. By beelining pottery first you can quickly have 3-4 cottages running on a river producing 3-4 commerce each. Your early research is insane.

Why is this important? Simply because no matter what resources are around you, you can get a military edge by beelining construction. Whats more you have enough research speed to get construction before the AIs get feudalism. Meaning you have catapults vs archers. Which means you can destroy any AI you wish to and solve any resource / wonder / land shortage you happen to have. Even their valuable capitals will fall easily to your catapults.

Production is important, but thats a function of good city sites and worker techs, not leader traits. Any leader can whip an army of axes or catapults together. A financial civ can beat the research speed of Emperor level non-financial AIs at the start and can leave Monarch non financial AIs in the dust. Eventually the AIs catch up due to their greater expansion and lower maintenance, only to find your their new cities receiving a friendly visit by your catapults.

Financial also means you can expand more recklessly during your early wars. You can support more troops and cities than you can with any other trait. If you are lucky enough to find copper and a close enemy, you can afford to hold all of their cities, not just a couple.

Lightbulbing and tech trading don't get to play until later. The high early research of Financial also means that you get Alphabet earlier and start tech trading faster. And you still have to self research a lot of techs before you can even start lightbulbing. With financial you will get techs like Civil Service earlier for even more benefits.

All of which makes Ragnar extremely good.

I still think its the most powerful trait because of the early game advantage. Later its less important and skillful play with other traits can easily make up or surpass its benefits. I like financial for its explosive start. But there are other explosive start strategies - an SE with Ramses and early pyramids is pretty explosive in early research too.

 

[DarkSchneider]

Dear god, I wish that were possible so we could play heads-up this way. I'll promise not to chose a financial leader if you honestly think that will give you an advantage.

I'd say that financial is almost better than having two other non-financial traits. I mean really, financial vs creative + protective, which would you choose?

Organized can help out in the same way that Financial can, but having financial is so helpful in so many ways. An extra 8 commerce per city (on average) is much better than getting half off on all Civics. Also, when you think about what the Colossus does. The colossus (a wonder) gives only the ocean tile benefits of financial, while financial also affects cottages and a few special resources.

So yes, if I were to play a non-financial leader, it would probably be an Organized one. I gave Mehmed a run once but overall, but didn't find the trait combinatiopn nearly as good as Hannibal's Financial/Charismatic.
It almost makes you wonder why the Carthagians didn't do better on the world stage.

 

[Sjaramei]

Organized can help out in the same way that Financial can, but having financial is so helpful in so many ways. An extra 8 commerce per city (on average) is much better than getting half off on all Civics. Also, when you think about what the Colossus does. The colossus (a wonder) gives only the ocean tile benefits of financial, while financial also affects cottages and a few special resources.

I checked a game of mine, organized would save me around 75 commerce, financial at the same time would give ~100-125 commerce (i didn't bother to count every single square)
This was with 3 low upkeep civics and 2 medium. Add in the courthouse/factory/lighthouse bonus and it catches up with financial. As i said.. underestimated.

This was late game, with infantry in the play and average city size 12-14 (1460 or something AD)

Don't get me wrong, financial is good, especially early on when cottaging a river square gives 3 commerce right off the bat. That coast squares is useful is of course good too. But the game isn't only about cash

The reason i prefer Organized leaders over Financial ones, is the cheap courthouses. You can whip courthouses immediately after end revolt and keep going forever almost. It's a bit harder doing that without Organized trait.

On a sidenote, i feel the best leaders for war is Hannibal and Napoleon cause of the awesome traits. Ragnar is close, but i feel Aggressive is weaker than Charismatic as it is now. (i wont comment on the Romans, Praets are too imba)

 

[obsolete]

I'd say that financial is almost better than having two other non-financial traits. I mean really, financial vs creative + protective, which would you choose?

Creative & Protective. You lose the initial land grabs by a landslide to these guys, and then also have to fight vs the protective bonuses. That extra commerce alone isn't going to be enough.

I honestly don't care for financial leaders, nor do I ever build cottages, aside from when an autoworker accidently makes one. PRODUCTION is my main concern at the higher levels.

 

[jafink]

obsolete, what map size do you usually play on? I can see production being all-important on duel and tiny maps, but on a standard map size your economy will crash before you can manage to do anything. Also with the whip production becomes easier to get.

 

[tazpn314]

I mean really, financial vs creative + protective, which would you choose?

In MP, Creative & Protective would be far more useful. Against the AI, that is a tougher call. I normally don't play with financial leader so I dont find it a must have.

 

[Defiant47]

What I dislike about financial leaders is that if the RNG sticks you with one, you're pretty much forced to play a CE, whereas I'd much rather prefer SE (so much that I even sneak in a bit of SE when financial), but in this case, I MUST go with CE, because as financial it's better and I have to make use of my traits.

 

[InvisibleStalke]

I checked a game of mine, organized would save me around 75 commerce, financial at the same time would give ~100-125 commerce (i didn't bother to count every single square)
This was with 3 low upkeep civics and 2 medium. Add in the courthouse/factory/lighthouse bonus and it catches up with financial. As i said.. underestimated.

This was late game, with infantry in the play and average city size 12-14 (1460 or something AD)

Don't get me wrong, financial is good, especially early on when cottaging a river square gives 3 commerce right off the bat. That coast squares is useful is of course good too. But the game isn't only about cash

The reason i prefer Organized leaders over Financial ones, is the cheap courthouses. You can whip courthouses immediately after end revolt and keep going forever almost. It's a bit harder doing that without Organized trait.

On a sidenote, i feel the best leaders for war is Hannibal and Napoleon cause of the awesome traits. Ragnar is close, but i feel Aggressive is weaker than Charismatic as it is now. (i wont comment on the Romans, Praets are too imba)

Its a case of an early bonus being worth more than a late one because you can exploit the early bonus earlier. The later bonuses are larger to compensate.

In the long run Charismatic >> Aggressive, but for your first war Aggressive rules. After that, I agree the advantage is with Charismatic - I love that trait too.

In the long run Organized may be as good or better than Financial (if we count the cheap buildings), but the early research blitz of financial lets you expand quickly at the start.

 

[InvisibleStalke]

In MP, Creative & Protective would be far more useful. Against the AI, that is a tougher call. I normally don't play with financial leader so I dont find it a must have.

Creative + Organized is pretty cool - makes for an war machine without pause. (Especially since you get Praets too). That competes well with financial.

Creative + Aggressive is pretty good too - thats my highest scoring game. War with lots of razing of cities and pillaging, but your fast growing culture fills in the spaces and you can add your own good cities later.

Creative + Protective doesn't inspire me much though. I don't really fear creative or protective AIs - their cities will fall to my catapults too.

 

[Jet]

Aggressive is definitely better at first if you get metal, especially Iron, and get an early start. And doing anything earlier is always better and has a compounding effect. But if you don't get metal, or start attacking late and without Iron, I think Charismatic is very competitive against Aggressive even for early wars. At least in single player.

 

[InvisibleStalke]

Aggressive is definitely better at first if you get metal, especially Iron, and get an early start. And doing anything earlier is always better and has a compounding effect. But if you don't get metal, or start attacking late and without Iron, I think Charismatic is very competitive against Aggressive even for early wars. At least in single player.

I agree.

Aggressive does get a second wind later in the game when you start drafting units. Its a big advantage to be able to get the pinch promotion immediately with a drafted rifleman. But overall I would rate Charismatic higher - the extra happiness is icing on the cake.

 

[Jet]

We'll just have to agree to agree... and play Boudica in every game.