Orgamized question

[NintendoTogepi]

Does this trait really help that much? I mean, it only reduces CIVIC maintanence, right? And since I usually play OCC's it's completely useless, but even without it is, is it really that good? Do people only like it for the cheap Lighthouses and Xourthouses?

 

[BalbanesBeoulve]

Yes it's good. Not quite as good as financial, imo, but it's a very close 2nd for pure economic benefits. Early game the cheap courthouses are invaluable, and almost make it worth it purely for that. Cheap lighthouses are also great. And late game cheap factories are also awesome.

The civic upkeep is useless for OCCs, obviously. But most traits are. OCCs are unique games and a trait's overall usefulness should not be decided upon how it works in a occ. But yes, a civic upkeep reduction is huge in large empires and when running expensive civics. that's why it's a warmonger's trait. Civic upkeep increases as the size of your empire increases. I just pulled up a save from the noble's club sitting bull game. At 49% population and 46% land, my civic upkeep is 246. Would saving 123 be worth it? I think so.


Organized leaders are pretty underrated, but i've found most of them to be very strong.

Roosevelt is just an awesome wonderspammer. His settled great priests and merchants will let you run at 100% science if you build wall street in your capital. Cheap forges and cheap factories makes him a production powerhouse.

Zara Yaqob is a great rexer with a very good early economy that leads to long term economic dominance. Getting both libraries and courthouses up very early just lets him tech so well from the BCs. And his UU is top notch and makes up for his lack of military traits when you want to expand militarily.

Hammurabi and Napoleon are both very good warmongers. Immediately whipping courthouses lets you absorb new lands without weighting down your economy. And speaking of warmongers, do i even need to mention JC?

Frederick is my favorite civ when running an SE. Organized lets you keep the slider very high just by cottaging your capital, and makes bureaucracy that much better.

Mehmed's one of the best civs for vertical growth. Tons of cheap buildings, tons of health and tons of happiness from the UB. he can get huge cities very early.

 

[Gliese 581]

It's not bad. I view it as an average trait.

 

[Iranon]

I'd imagine it's weak in a OCC, yes.

Imagine you are a bloodthirsty warmonger. You are focusing everything on production, building units in your developed cities and important infrastructure in your new acquisitions that will make them worth keeping.
You don't work commerce tiles or run specialists at all unless there is nothing useful to do; you are willing to plod along at 0% research until the war is won or you can go no further.

PHI won't do anything for you given you run no specialists (if you have farm cities, you will whip frantically). Useless.
FIN will do little for you since you're working as few commerce tiles as you can afford to. Meh.
ORG will halve your civic upkeep, and provide you with cheaper courthouses which are the most efficient building at balancing your budget if you continue to focus everything on production. Awesome.

This comparison is far from fair and highlights the strengths of ORG; I won't deny that a peaceful cottage addict will get more out of FIN.
While the other economic traits help you get out of the hole, ORG doesn't only do that, it also allows you to mistreat your economy for much longer. As such, I consider it to be possibly the most desirable warmonger trait there is.

 

[NintendoTogepi]

Yes it's good. Not quite as good as financial, imo, but it's a very close 2nd for pure economic benefits. Early game the cheap courthouses are invaluable, and almost make it worth it purely for that. Cheap lighthouses are also great. And late game cheap factories are also awesome.

The civic upkeep is useless for OCCs, obviously. But most traits are. OCCs are unique games and a trait's overall usefulness should not be decided upon how it works in a occ. But yes, a civic upkeep reduction is huge in large empires and when running expensive civics. that's why it's a warmonger's trait. Civic upkeep increases as the size of your empire increases. I just pulled up a save from the noble's club sitting bull game. At 49% population and 46% land, my civic upkeep is 246. Would saving 123 be worth it? I think so.

I guess, but my empires are never that big...usually 20% or so....and I turtle to a Space, Culture or Diplomatic win

 

[MrCynical]

It's a middle of the road sort of trait. The cheap buildings I find to be of more importance than the civic upkeep.

 

[Diamondeye]

I'd imagine it's weak in a OCC, yes.

Imagine you are a bloodthirsty warmonger. You are focusing everything on production, building units in your developed cities and important infrastructure in your new acquisitions that will make them worth keeping.
You don't work commerce tiles or run specialists at all unless there is nothing useful to do; you are willing to plod along at 0% research until the war is won or you can go no further.

PHI won't do anything for you given you run no specialists (if you have farm cities, you will whip frantically). Useless.
FIN will do little for you since you're working as few commerce tiles as you can afford to. Meh.
ORG will halve your civic upkeep, and provide you with cheaper courthouses which are the most efficient building at balancing your budget if you continue to focus everything on production. Awesome.

This comparison is far from fair and highlights the strengths of ORG; I won't deny that a peaceful cottage addict will get more out of FIN.
While the other economic traits help you get out of the hole, ORG doesn't only do that, it also allows you to mistreat your economy for much longer. As such, I consider it to be possibly the most desirable warmonger trait there is.

Add to this that the war civics tend to have higher upkeep (Slavery, Vassalage, Police State, Merc, Theo).

Also, the cheap buildings are nice, doubly so on coastal. Try playing archipelago with Ind/Org leader (I believe its a Caesar or American?), and grab GLH then go settler spam. Try playing Imp/Org (Caesar?) of Sumeria and settlerspam! Try playing the same with HRE. Lots of posibilities here.

 

[tycoonist]

napoleon, previously a very weak leader due to the minimally useful aggressive trait, is now a very good war leader. this is due to the killer combination of charismatic and organised. running expensive war civics like vassalage, theocracy and police state gives multiple promotions to charismatic units.

 

[madscientist]

If you are running a OCC then it's useless.

Otherwise I have always considered it one of the best trait.

BB, you forgot the best leader. Julius Caesar, war-monger extraordinaire with Prats and the Imperialistic trait. Rome can grow unlimitlessly!!!!

 

[timmy827]

I also think it's very good. Some additional comments:
1. Don't just look at civic maintenance to see how much it saves in the late game. Remember that inflation applies too.
2. Courthouse is possibly the best building to have cheap in the whole game; granaries are probably the only rival. Why? The $ you save from a courthouse in the pre-corporation era depends primarily on how far it is from your capital and your total # of cities, and only slightly on the city's population. Thus, a courthouse in a city that produces little is about as valuable as in your best city, potentially more valuable as your best cities may be your capital or closeby. This is not true of most buildings in the game. So I consider the ability to quickly chop/whip a courthouse out in newly founded/captured cities very powerful.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Read VirusMonster's 500k score guide. Organized can have a very big benefit, outstripping financial in some games. (By the way, financial is pretty useless in OCC too actually)

 

[Diamondeye]

unlimitlessly!!!!

You might wanna check that word in a dictionary, Madscientist

But you're right, Caesar is a blast

 

[Kesshi]

Read VirusMonster's 500k score guide. Organized can have a very big benefit, outstripping financial in some games. (By the way, financial is pretty useless in OCC too actually)

What TheMeInTeam is talking about here is that early game, Financial benefits are greater than Organized. Where as end-game Organized benefits are greater than Financial.

Another feature about Organized is that it is also very useful to the SE player. Typically I play SE, and the only plots that will generate more than 1 commerce are coastal tiles, oases, and happiness resources, the Financial trait fails to be as useful to me. Where as the Organized trait is always useful. Organized also lets me play in Bureaucracy, which is a high maintiance civic, while I have a large empire. Because a Specialist Economy will typically focus on one city, your capital, this makes Bureacuracy very apealing even with a very large empire. Organized makes it more-so.

To summarize:

Financial - More useful for the early game and more useful for the cottage economy
Organized - More useful for the late game and more useful for the specialist economy

There's more to it than that, but that's the basics.

 

[Gliese 581]

What TheMeInTeam is talking about here is that early game, Financial benefits are greater than Organized. Where as end-game Organized benefits are greater than Financial.

Another feature about Organized is that it is also very useful to the SE player. Typically I play SE, and the only plots that will generate more than 1 commerce are coastal tiles, oases, and happiness resources, the Financial trait fails to be as useful to me. Where as the Organized trait is always useful. Organized also lets me play in Bureaucracy, which is a high maintiance civic, while I have a large empire. Because a Specialist Economy will typically focus on one city, your capital, this makes Bureacuracy very apealing even with a very large empire. Organized makes it more-so.

To summarize:

Financial - More useful for the early game and more useful for the cottage economy
Organized - More useful for the late game and more useful for the specialist economy

There's more to it than that, but that's the basics.

I disagree with this, it depends on your playstyle. Obviously if you don't build cottages organized will always be better. However, as long as you work cottages, financial will always be a better trait, early game, late game, peacetime, wartime. It can be difficuly sometimes during war to do work cottages though, if you rely on whipping or drafting or lack good production cities, in which case organized can be better for the duration of such a war.

Bureacracy is in fact enhanced alot by financial and hardly something to avoid because of the high maintenance as your post seems to hint at.
But I'm not sure I understand your notion of a specialist economy. To me specialist economy is essentially an economy that relies on specialists throughout the empire, lots of food and hammers, and switch between production and research and most often accompanied by strategic bulbing and warfare. Obviously financial wont help you very much in this kind of game but I think it's inaccurate to say that financial is not a strong late game trait, a financial CE is the strongest economy you can have late game.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

What TheMeInTeam is talking about here is that early game, Financial benefits are greater than Organized. Where as end-game Organized benefits are greater than Financial.

Another feature about Organized is that it is also very useful to the SE player. Typically I play SE, and the only plots that will generate more than 1 commerce are coastal tiles, oases, and happiness resources, the Financial trait fails to be as useful to me. Where as the Organized trait is always useful. Organized also lets me play in Bureaucracy, which is a high maintiance civic, while I have a large empire. Because a Specialist Economy will typically focus on one city, your capital, this makes Bureacuracy very apealing even with a very large empire. Organized makes it more-so.

To summarize:

Financial - More useful for the early game and more useful for the cottage economy
Organized - More useful for the late game and more useful for the specialist economy

There's more to it than that, but that's the basics.

It was actually organized being superior to financial in the early game in that case - He was conquering with praetorians very quickly and the drop in civic maintenance was way more than financial could have kept up with for some time. The better trait is very situational, but I often find myself favoring organized when I'm massively warring early on also.

 

[Kesshi]

I disagree with this, it depends on your playstyle. Obviously if you don't build cottages organized will always be better. However, as long as you work cottages, financial will always be a better trait, early game, late game, peacetime, wartime. It can be difficuly sometimes during war to do work cottages though, if you rely on whipping or drafting or lack good production cities, in which case organized can be better for the duration of such a war.

Bureacracy is in fact enhanced alot by financial and hardly something to avoid because of the high maintenance as your post seems to hint at.
But I'm not sure I understand your notion of a specialist economy. To me specialist economy is essentially an economy that relies on specialists throughout the empire, lots of food and hammers, and switch between production and research and most often accompanied by strategic bulbing and warfare. Obviously financial wont help you very much in this kind of game but I think it's inaccurate to say that financial is not a strong late game trait, a financial CE is the strongest economy you can have late game.

Gliese,

On reanalysis, I'll think you're right. Early vs late game was incorrect.

What I should have said was small vs large empires. For smaller empires, financial is more beneficial (in general.) Where as for larger empires, Organized is more beneficial (in general.) Of course exceptions exist.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

It depends very heavily on the kind of land you're working with also. It's a very difficult comparison because of the factors that go into it. I like them both as traits a lot though as they're both very easy to make use of and generally these uses show up in most if not all games .

 

[Kesshi]

TheMeInTeam,

Hmm, perhaps I'm jaded because I don't know how to play a Cottage Economy very well and I can dominate with a Specialist Economy*. One of these days you're going to have to teach me how to manage a cottage economy. SEs just come naturally to me and CEs confuse me so much that if I can't build the pyramids, I scrap the game and start over.

*I once landed Future Tech in the late 1700s, and in my first OCC I landed Infantry in the 1300s, both were only on noble, but still...

No, I take that back. I did play a monarch game a few months ago in an attempt to understand the cottage economy. I ended up winning via culture, but I was way behind everyone in techs, and trying to buy or trade what I could without pissing off the world. ...and I hadn't even mobilized an army for fear of what it would cost me. I mostly kept my outdated and small (by my standards) army at home. Had I not been trying for culture since turn 1, I doubt I could have won that game.

 

[DaveMcW]

Hmm, perhaps I'm jaded because I don't know how to play a Cottage Economy very well and I can dominate with a Specialist Economy*. One of these days you're going to have to teach me how to manage a cottage economy. SEs just come naturally to me and CEs confuse me so much that if I can't build the pyramids, I scrap the game and start over.

Play your first non-pyramid game* one difficulty level lower.

And don't forget to uncheck the OCC box.

*I hate to call anything other than obsessive-compulsive cottage spam a CE. You are much better off balancing cottages and specialists.

 

[Kesshi]

Play your first non-pyramid game* one difficulty level lower.

And don't forget to uncheck the OCC box.

DaveMcW,

I really don't have a set difficulty I consistently play. I've beat a few Deity games, but I feel on par with the AI at Emperor, so I guess I consider myself an Emperor player. Hmm, I guess I did do just that; described above I played a Monarch CE game where I felt so uncomfortable being one of the furthest behind in techs, and having one of the most outdated armies. I forget the details, but I remember that I ended up with 4 or 5 holy cities (or maybe more?) but still always felt like I couldn't get research fast enough.

I guess the fact that I won meant I was doing something right, but I just feel like if I had played a SE I could have chose to win many other ways, where as with the CE I felt like if I hadn't planned for a Cultural win from turn one, I wouldn't have won.