futurehermit
Deity
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2006
- Messages
- 5,724
I know certain immortal/deity players that prize philosophical (e.g., acidsatyr) and industrious (e.g., mutineer) leaders.
Phil/Indu
- Thread starter ungy
- Start date
Sisiutil
All Leader Challenger
I tried Ind/Phi on a Monarch-level game yesterday by changing one of Roosevelt's traits. Even with the late UU and UB, and mediocre starting techs, it still seemed horribly unbalanced. Of course it probably didn't help that the fractal map I drew was a Pangaea and I had marble in the capital's BFC--I built both the Oracle and the Parthenon. I leapt into the score lead sooner than I ever have before at Monarch level, and this despite not engaging in a war until the medieval era. I also managed to get Liberalism by 1000 AD (something else I've never done before).
Maybe it would be more balanced at the higher levels, but it was just insane at Monarch.
Maybe it would be more balanced at the higher levels, but it was just insane at Monarch.
possibly, but the traits are/should be balanced with monarch in mind as most people play at that level or below
futurehermit
Deity
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2006
- Messages
- 5,724
true, there is a poll in the BtS forums asking what level people will play at for their first BtS game. most of them are noble/prince.
madscientist
RPC Supergenius
To me three pairs of traits are way overpowered as a human or AI, agressive/Charismatic (now in BTS), Financial/organized (GW in Vanilla, Darius in BTS), and Phi/Ind (Unassigned). My view is that all three should be in or none of them, but otherwise not a big deal. Industrious gives you more wonders faster which philosophical allows you to pop our Great peapole faster, which lightbulb technologies faster which opens up other wonders and so forth, an endless circle that is very effective with little skill. Financial allows you to tech faster and get better civics faster which allows you to save money more which allows you to tech fast by having the slider near 100% etc... Agressive allows you shock promotions with a barracks and charismatic allows faster upgrades for units that already start well promoted, not as bad as the previous 2 but nasty nevertheless, especially later in the game. Washington has always been my favorite leader and I like him better in warlords than vanilla.
futurehermit
Deity
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2006
- Messages
- 5,724
I'm fond of Washington in both versions, but especially warlords as well. I like the extra 
and health and it doesn't seem as op as fin/org. That being said, I don't think fin/org is too bad and I'm looking forward to playing it. I would rate it lower than cha/agg on your list. I would say ind/phi is the most powerful cha/agg a close second and then fin/org less powerful. I'm not even sure I would say it is the 3rd most powerful because I don't consider it uber-powerful. Combined with immortals though....THAT is what makes Darius op imho 
and health and it doesn't seem as op as fin/org. That being said, I don't think fin/org is too bad and I'm looking forward to playing it. I would rate it lower than cha/agg on your list. I would say ind/phi is the most powerful cha/agg a close second and then fin/org less powerful. I'm not even sure I would say it is the 3rd most powerful because I don't consider it uber-powerful. Combined with immortals though....THAT is what makes Darius op imho
madscientist
RPC Supergenius
I agree FIN/ORG would be the third most powerful combo. Not sure which combo's would be better, although Cyrus' Imperialistic/Charismatic is an absolute monster of a great general creator, especially with the great wall. Ghengis being agressive, imperialistic with the GER seams a little overpowered on horse units but again he is the great Kahn! Rome and Inca are pretty overpowered but more so becaus eof the units/building than trait combos.
futurehermit
Deity
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2006
- Messages
- 5,724
Phi/Fin to me is at least as powerful as Fin/Org, probably moreso. I would say Cre/Phil has the potential to be more powerful than Fin/Org. Cha/Phi as well I would rank highly.
p.s., aggressive + gers/mounted units are mutually exclusive.
p.s., aggressive + gers/mounted units are mutually exclusive.
I believe that Phi/Ind still far away ahead as the most overpowered. Whatever you do war a lot or not, it helps a lot (in a SE it helps more, that's true; but helps a lot anyway, there's too much synergy between Ind and Phi). In my opinion Cha/Agg and Imp/Agg, without _many_ wars, are not even better than Agg + some other traits.
popejubal
Emperor
I just tried it out and I now believe that for most players (especially players who graduated from Civ 3), Industrious and Philosophical would be extremely unbalanced... in the negative direction.
With both Industrious and Philosophical, I found myself building "just one more" wonder and losing the game because of it. It was so tempting to just go for that one more that I ended up neglecting other aspects of the game because of it.
In a One City Challenge, it would be absolutely amazing, but for plain old Civ IV, I'd rather have another trait combo that doesn't push me into playing poorly.
It's a lot like "No Barbarians". It's fun for a game or two until you realize that the Barbarians force you to build enough units to defend yourself from Monte and Alexander and others of their ilk. They force you to play in a better way because you know that the threat is there and coming for you (unlike the AI Civs who you can convince yourself will somehow love you for the entire game even though you're a different religion and Isabella has already switched to Theocracy).
With both Industrious and Philosophical, I found myself building "just one more" wonder and losing the game because of it. It was so tempting to just go for that one more that I ended up neglecting other aspects of the game because of it.
In a One City Challenge, it would be absolutely amazing, but for plain old Civ IV, I'd rather have another trait combo that doesn't push me into playing poorly.
It's a lot like "No Barbarians". It's fun for a game or two until you realize that the Barbarians force you to build enough units to defend yourself from Monte and Alexander and others of their ilk. They force you to play in a better way because you know that the threat is there and coming for you (unlike the AI Civs who you can convince yourself will somehow love you for the entire game even though you're a different religion and Isabella has already switched to Theocracy).
I think warring is a superior strategy to peaceful wonder building at lower levels as well, just that at lower levels you can get away with the weaker strategy.
A combination of traits that makes the peaceful path more competitive is in my book better for the game.
If you know how to leverage the phi/indu trait, I believe you should have little challenge with levels below monarch. So monarch might really be the sweet spot for that combo.
I tested a few starts on immortal with a modified Roosevelt and came to the following conclusions:
The main leverage of this combo is to get the pyramids to run SE and generate lots of GP. Not too many wonders are worth building at that level--of the later ones the ones I will try for if possible are Glib and SL. Indu is nice but really not a big deal for them.
If I don't get the pyramids, I'm sure that this is a weaker combo than most of the other philo leaders--certainly much weaker than Liz.
I see 3 ways to get pyramids:
1. Build it.
2. Build GW and use eng.
3. Build oracle and whip forge in city 2--then run eng spec.
Admittedly I only played a few starts, but came to the following conclusions:
1. Build it takes too many hammers w/o stone. If stone this could be attractive.
2. This made the most sense and use of synergy. This is doable, but not 100% as you either don't get the engineer in time or have to run scientists. In my games I think I took around a 75% chance at it. You also get the GW up before the barbs cross your culture so you don't need early units.
3. This was clearly not doable w/o gold. I'll try again with a gold start but you don't have near the tech you need without gold. You need to get the oracle built and city 2 to size 4 by about 1700 and defend against barbs--and the oracle techs +BW and pottery. I think a tall order for most starts.
I think at this level only the GW sling made sense and it was hardly OP. The GW has to be built before the first settler and you definately lose critical expansion time. Another downside is that by waiting for the eng you delay the normal early academy. Overall I think the strategy has merit but probably not universally correct. And it's not 100% to work.
The main leverage of this combo is to get the pyramids to run SE and generate lots of GP. Not too many wonders are worth building at that level--of the later ones the ones I will try for if possible are Glib and SL. Indu is nice but really not a big deal for them.
If I don't get the pyramids, I'm sure that this is a weaker combo than most of the other philo leaders--certainly much weaker than Liz.
I see 3 ways to get pyramids:
1. Build it.
2. Build GW and use eng.
3. Build oracle and whip forge in city 2--then run eng spec.
Admittedly I only played a few starts, but came to the following conclusions:
1. Build it takes too many hammers w/o stone. If stone this could be attractive.
2. This made the most sense and use of synergy. This is doable, but not 100% as you either don't get the engineer in time or have to run scientists. In my games I think I took around a 75% chance at it. You also get the GW up before the barbs cross your culture so you don't need early units.
3. This was clearly not doable w/o gold. I'll try again with a gold start but you don't have near the tech you need without gold. You need to get the oracle built and city 2 to size 4 by about 1700 and defend against barbs--and the oracle techs +BW and pottery. I think a tall order for most starts.
I think at this level only the GW sling made sense and it was hardly OP. The GW has to be built before the first settler and you definately lose critical expansion time. Another downside is that by waiting for the eng you delay the normal early academy. Overall I think the strategy has merit but probably not universally correct. And it's not 100% to work.
For those who say phi/indu is OP at lower levels--I would ask if they think they can also win handily at that level with the Inca, Persian, or Roman UU by running over their neighbors.
I would also ask people to describe a little more what they did and what level they played.
I remain unconvinced that it's OP at any level.
I would also ask people to describe a little more what they did and what level they played.
I remain unconvinced that it's OP at any level.
Easy early cultural victory, Emperor level. (I won culturally at Emperor with other Phi combos, but not that often and that early).
I don't know exactly where could be the edge between overpowered and strong. But if you ask me what's the strongest combo possible in the game, I will surely answer Phi / Ind.
futurehermit
Deity
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2006
- Messages
- 5,724
I think phi/ind should just be in the game and let us millions of playtesters see what we can and can't do with it
Like I said earlier, give this civ fishing/hunting and a mediocre UU and UB (as someone else mentioned, USA would be great for this although they start with ag/fish, which I actually like: good early food coastal or inland).
Like I said earlier, give this civ fishing/hunting and a mediocre UU and UB (as someone else mentioned, USA would be great for this although they start with ag/fish, which I actually like: good early food coastal or inland).
madscientist
RPC Supergenius
If lincoln was ind/phil I bet most players would be targeting him early when he's an AI. To claim the wonder she probably built and prevent him from utilizing the phil trait with the built wonders.
Sisiutil
All Leader Challenger
I think phi/ind should just be in the game and let us millions of playtesters see what we can and can't do with it
Like I said earlier, give this civ fishing/hunting and a mediocre UU and UB (as someone else mentioned, USA would be great for this although they start with ag/fish, which I actually like: good early food coastal or inland).
Sounds like you'd like to see this in the Canada mod...
I don't think Phi/Ind would be too broken. Strong, yes. But my current favorite trait combo is Cha/Fin (Hannibal), which is borderline broken as well. And I'm looking forward to Agg/Cha and Cha/Phi in BtS. Those seem very strong as well. So I say, put Phi/Ind in the game (with a weak/late UU, as suggested), and let there be a strong peacemonger option.
peace,
lilnev
peace,
lilnev
gettingfat
Emperor
- Joined
- Nov 7, 2003
- Messages
- 1,417
Hannibal is borderlinely broken not just because of the traits. His UU and UB are both reasonably good. At the beginning I sort of looked down upon the numidian cavalry, now I start to realize how dangerous these 5-strength little ponies can be when they are in large quantity funded by the large cottaged cities (as a well of fin/cha).
Once I got a floodplain start I cottaged aggressively and beelined to horse riding and immediately build stacks of them in my production cities to attack my neighbours. I didn't even bother with waiting for construction and cat building. The 50% withdrawal rate of flank II num cav. is just too good to soften up the city defenders. I build half of them withdrawal oriented (flank II plus combat I/sentry), half of them strength-based (flank I + combat II/shock) and a few medic units (medic I) and pillaging units (+mobility). When you concentrate your force on selected target hey really kicked axx. The shock units actually could deal with the spears reasonably well that were built before the copper was pillaged. Hannibal is really getting to my top 3 list recently.
