Industrious
- Thread starter bradbowen
- Start date
budweiser
King of the Beers
I'm with Bingen. I like scientific alot! I have a few emporer wins with Germany and one with Russia and one with Greece. I have one 'peaceful' demigod win as america, but I might try Germany next time.
I really like germany. I think the militaristic trait may be a bit overlooked especially when if you are trying to learn the higher levels. That's because the ai is going to have so many more units than you and you are going to have to destroy them if you want to make war. So the militarisitic trait will give you 'free' HP and more promotions, and chances are, an earlier army. The previously mentioned benefits of scientific are also great here.
In the end, I think each trait combo is as good as the next, but it just requires a different approach that you may not have thought about or are as good at doing. I also do not think the games are ever as hard or as hopeless as they can appear early on. You never know what will happen and an ai civ that you may think is going to win may end up being beaten by 2 or 3 other rivals.
I really like germany. I think the militaristic trait may be a bit overlooked especially when if you are trying to learn the higher levels. That's because the ai is going to have so many more units than you and you are going to have to destroy them if you want to make war. So the militarisitic trait will give you 'free' HP and more promotions, and chances are, an earlier army. The previously mentioned benefits of scientific are also great here.
In the end, I think each trait combo is as good as the next, but it just requires a different approach that you may not have thought about or are as good at doing. I also do not think the games are ever as hard or as hopeless as they can appear early on. You never know what will happen and an ai civ that you may think is going to win may end up being beaten by 2 or 3 other rivals.
bingen
Prince
I agree that the early turns are most important. I agree that agricultural is a very powerful trait. However, on Sid Pangaeas I have had more success with the Greeks(commercial+scientific) than with the Iroquois(commercial+agricultural), and not because of the hoplites. On lower difficulties I still favor the Iroquois.
Religious? Cheap temples are hardly that important. Militaristic(my choice for worst tech, just to disagree with bud)? Commercial is not particularily good very early either.
On the flip side, expansionist is a trait that has all its power in the early game, yet I hesitate to designate it a top trait. I feel it might be a bit under appreciated though.
bradbowen said:
Religious? Cheap temples are hardly that important. Militaristic(my choice for worst tech, just to disagree with bud)? Commercial is not particularily good very early either.
On the flip side, expansionist is a trait that has all its power in the early game, yet I hesitate to designate it a top trait. I feel it might be a bit under appreciated though.
WackenOpenAir
Deity
scientific on SID ????????????
How many libraries do you build?
Do those 3 free techs at the beginning of the ages really help you that much?
expansionist has its power in early game, but it is redundand power. It gives the thing that is easiest to aquire in the game anyway, AA techs.
How many libraries do you build?
Do those 3 free techs at the beginning of the ages really help you that much?
expansionist has its power in early game, but it is redundand power. It gives the thing that is easiest to aquire in the game anyway, AA techs.
Tomoyo
Fate
Commercial is great for the beginning. Starting with Alphabet is a huge bonus because you can start on Writing and get the techs behind it so much faster. It also trades for a good value.
Jopedamus I
Immortality is reality
Jeah, commercial is great and with agricultural best for higher levels. I really don't understand how it is possible to survive and win sid continents or pangaea without having agricultural trait because otherwise early expansion is so slow. Fast early growth+great trading is a must to keep up with ai. And for me personally it is VERY difficult to keep up with ai so well that I can take advantage with free tech that scientific gives(or maybe I'm just not good enough). Only sci civ that has potential are Sumerians. With Greece the early expansion is just too slow(even if hoplites manages to keep me alive). In archipelago its different story, of course. But archipelago (at least with little landmass) is like cheating anyway...
bingen
Prince
I like scientific primarily on panagea maps where little oppurtunities for cross trading can put me in a pit. I prefer a builders approach(I concede that this might not be the best) and so will build a lot of libraries, uisually during the middle ages. Does XXX really help you that much can be asked for most of the trait though. Do you guys always play the Iroquois on Pangaea Sid/Deity, or do you have other favorites?
Tomoyo: I agree, I temporarily forgot the alphabet when I wrote the previous post. If you look back a page you will see that I am a big fan of commercial.
Tomoyo: I agree, I temporarily forgot the alphabet when I wrote the previous post. If you look back a page you will see that I am a big fan of commercial.
Jopedamus I
Immortality is reality
Deity/sid are only levels that I don't play random. I like to use Iros, France, Sumeria, Celts, Persia(just love Immortals), Dutch and Mayans. Sometimes in deity I take more difficult civs like Scandinavia, but in sid only those that I think are best(just 1 continents-sid win so far and that with a LOT of luck 
).
).
Abaddon
Deity
WackenOpenAir said:
I always build markets, at any level. (ok so i still play at warlord) its the easiest way to keep people happy and also make some moneyor am i stoopid?
Doc Tsiolkovski
Deity
No, building Markets is what you usually should do; the only exception is when you're running 80-100% Science and don't have more than 2 Luxuries (and that is the situation Wacken refers to).
In that cause, you will neither benefit from the income, nor for happiness.
In that cause, you will neither benefit from the income, nor for happiness.
Abaddon
Deity
aha ok.
so unless im making money (low sci setting) the markets dont to much? i guess a 50%(or whatever it is) increase on nothing isnt much
so unless im making money (low sci setting) the markets dont to much? i guess a 50%(or whatever it is) increase on nothing isnt much
Doc Tsiolkovski
Deity
Your assumption is correct. Even worse, on 100% SCI Markets still cost 1gpt maintenance, while they give you zero additional income.
WackenOpenAir
Deity
On lower difficulties, you are probably running very high science.
The luxuries make the markets usefull, but not usefull enough to build many of them since you can be winning the game so early without them that its often better to not waste time on them.
am not saying you should never build any on low levels, but the number of markets on the first 3-4 difficulty levels should vary between 0 and 7 IMO. 7 when your game is delayed by the need for navigation. 0 when your game can be won in ancient age.
The luxuries make the markets usefull, but not usefull enough to build many of them since you can be winning the game so early without them that its often better to not waste time on them.
am not saying you should never build any on low levels, but the number of markets on the first 3-4 difficulty levels should vary between 0 and 7 IMO. 7 when your game is delayed by the need for navigation. 0 when your game can be won in ancient age.
budweiser
King of the Beers
I probably build too many markets because I run high science (90-100) most of the time. I think the best thing to do is make a determination on a per city basis, based on how many luxuries you control or trade for as to whetehr or not you will need a market. I have a strong tendancy to build markets if I am going into republic because I have the notion that they create more money. I am just beginging to make the connection about how that relates to science.
I think the best way to go is to play the map and take luxuries or trade for them, and try and control the population of your towns based on your ability to make your people happy. This could put you in an early situation where you have very many towns with low population, a good time to choose feudalism for your gov.
I think the best way to go is to play the map and take luxuries or trade for them, and try and control the population of your towns based on your ability to make your people happy. This could put you in an early situation where you have very many towns with low population, a good time to choose feudalism for your gov.
WackenOpenAir
Deity
budweiser said:
I never hold back growth in my core for hapiness reasons.
Simply, every citizen makes at least one gold, that is already enough to pay for its own happiness by the luxury slider.
Only if there is one city with insane surplus, it could grow to fast, but such cities are usually worker/settler factories.
Do not fear the population and the lux slider.
50% lux at 500 income is better than 20% lux on 300 income isn't it?
Doc Tsiolkovski
Deity
There is a flaw in that calculation: Even if you're researching like mad, you need any money you can get. And, if lots of Markets everywhere allow you to run only 10% lux every 4th turn (when you can lower the SCI slider the last turn before a tech is discovered), you can often make enough cash to fund deficit research for the next three turns again.
Plus, WltKDs in the mediocre cities help a lot.
This of course doesn't matter when you're only trying to win ASAP, but it will matter if you go for Diplo/Space/Culture.
WackenOpenAir
Deity
my 50% - 20% thing was only to explain that you should really not hold back growth for happiness reasons.
Yes, marketplaces do make money. Obviously.
The reason not to build many on low difficulty levels is that they delay your victory. If every core city builds one, taking 10 turns, it already delays your militairy production by 10 turns. During those 10 turns, your opponent produces extra units, making them harder to conquer. So you lose even more than 10 turns.
If you can win say 40 - 50 turns after your market places are ready, and count in the fact that the last 10-15 turns of income are normally pretty redundand as they wont reach the battlefield in any way, then you have a pretty short time to benefit from your markets.
Another little calculation:
say you like markets, and you build 12 of them.
That is 1200 shields.
1200 shields is 40 horsemen/swordmen or mounted warriors !
Such an army alone is enough to conquer half a standard sized world map already ! If you play irioquois, it might well be enough to conquer the whole map.
This army will conquer dozens of cities for you. Each of those cities pay you:
-2 gpt for unit upkeep. Ok, with markets you wouldn't need to pay for units, so we won't count this.
-2 gpt from taxman. (every city can always support at least 1 of these, somtimes more)
-1 gpt from wealth.
so that is at least 3 gpt per city. How many did you conquer? 20 with swords or horses? 30 with MW? that is already 60-90 gold benefit. That will probably ofset more than half of the benefit from your marketplaces.
Oh yes, did that guy from whom you took all those cities just pay you all his gold for peace?
Yes, marketplaces do make money. Obviously.
The reason not to build many on low difficulty levels is that they delay your victory. If every core city builds one, taking 10 turns, it already delays your militairy production by 10 turns. During those 10 turns, your opponent produces extra units, making them harder to conquer. So you lose even more than 10 turns.
If you can win say 40 - 50 turns after your market places are ready, and count in the fact that the last 10-15 turns of income are normally pretty redundand as they wont reach the battlefield in any way, then you have a pretty short time to benefit from your markets.
Another little calculation:
say you like markets, and you build 12 of them.
That is 1200 shields.
1200 shields is 40 horsemen/swordmen or mounted warriors !
Such an army alone is enough to conquer half a standard sized world map already ! If you play irioquois, it might well be enough to conquer the whole map.
This army will conquer dozens of cities for you. Each of those cities pay you:
-2 gpt for unit upkeep. Ok, with markets you wouldn't need to pay for units, so we won't count this.
-2 gpt from taxman. (every city can always support at least 1 of these, somtimes more)
-1 gpt from wealth.
so that is at least 3 gpt per city. How many did you conquer? 20 with swords or horses? 30 with MW? that is already 60-90 gold benefit. That will probably ofset more than half of the benefit from your marketplaces.
Oh yes, did that guy from whom you took all those cities just pay you all his gold for peace?
budweiser
King of the Beers
Here is all this talk about saving shields to buy units to conquer the world faster, yet the militaristic trait is still scoffed at, not even considered. I believe the civs are palced in the order that they are on the game setup screen for a reason. The order is Rome, Greece, Germany, etc. Those are the top civs, two of them are militaristic, none are industrious and I think all are meant for conquest.
LionQ
Noble
The trait you consider of greatest importance is also dependent on the type of player you are and on the type of Victory you want to achieve. Some people say Militaristic is best, but what value has this trait for peaceful people that want to achieve the SS Victory?
Another example: some people change often from one Government to another; to avoid War Weariness, for instance. If you often change, then Religious is of great value. However, if you're only changing twice - for example Despotism > Republic > Democracy - then Religious will be of much lesser value.
Another factor that's influencing the value of the specific traits is your starting position. If you're starting in an area that's rich of productive Terrain Types - like Forests and Hills - you might not need Industrious so badly. However, if you're desperately searching for productivity - for example: if you're in a vast area of Grasslands - Industrious might be very useful.
Consider these factors. Certain traits can be of different value in certain situations.
Another example: some people change often from one Government to another; to avoid War Weariness, for instance. If you often change, then Religious is of great value. However, if you're only changing twice - for example Despotism > Republic > Democracy - then Religious will be of much lesser value.
Another factor that's influencing the value of the specific traits is your starting position. If you're starting in an area that's rich of productive Terrain Types - like Forests and Hills - you might not need Industrious so badly. However, if you're desperately searching for productivity - for example: if you're in a vast area of Grasslands - Industrious might be very useful.
Consider these factors. Certain traits can be of different value in certain situations.
